My mental active being (the, IT) is the first and the last of its' own hybrid (humanoid) kind—IT is without dependent collective social root—IT itself is the death of "The-Self"—IT is the 'no-self' (the "no-I")—for there is also no "me" in any of my three dividual beings (dividuality). Besides IT itself, there is no other, nor will there ever be—IT is that IT is.

Like this:

The coagulum of our modern social consciousness are prone to understand, and dispose, the concept of distinct to be characteristically connoted—referring to it as characteristics that are unique, peculiar, special and “distinguished.” This is also applied to with animals, when people personify them as persons, and therefore, make them as distinctive.

The etymology of the word distinct derives from the Latin word, distincten, and it was used to make concise distinctions (not just to distinguish characters from one to the other), but mostly, to make distinctions between species—that is, to specify “action of distinguishing” between different creatures, according to their kind(s)—a separation/discrimination in nature and physiology (which was determined that the human species were distinct—greater than any other species—because of us solely possessing the-Mind’s awareness). In late Latin, distinctivus, later was applied and attributed to differentiate unique traits and skills in different characters; and even in ranking positions/life (e.g., rich vs royalty). Once the demarcations between different species were removed, especially, through the introduction of the empirical theory of evolution, even animals are now reasoned among humans that many of them too possess awareness (the-Mind).

The matter of the fact is, that the only thing (or aspect) that makes anything distinctive, is the-Mind (sentience/awareness), so that the-Mind itself is distinctive, and not instinctive. And since many characteristics and personalities are biologically inherited, they are then not distinctive, but instinctive. What does this then mean?

Since many characteristics and personalities are instinctively shared among many (in any species), they cannot be distinct, for there are many two characters alike: However, when it comes to the-Mind, there are no two minds alike. How’s that? You may ask… Although inherited physiological characteristics and personalities are shared, how we experience them with our minds is how we (as the human species) become distinctive in comparison to every other mindless (unaware) species.

The immaterial mind of the human material brain, is equipped with seven distinctive actuating tools: Besides from its major actuating tool (which is sentience—awareness), there is the distinct actuating tool of experience, which is only exclusive to each of its possessor—and this tool is actuated when the-Mind experiences the-Mind itself—solely then enabling the human species to become aware of internal and external experiences—thus making every single mind of the human species, unique (distinctive). So without a mind, no creature can animate their inherited characteristics and personalities, distinctively. Hence, the manner and disposition that one is experiencing his/her own inherited character and personality, in full awareness, is what makes him/her distinguishable. If it wasn’t for the-Mind itself, the human species would be like any other species—just instinctive.

The Instinct

When it comes to the instinct, it can be very confusing with what is distinct. As written in a few of my previous articles, when consciousness (which is nothing more but material cerebral memory and thought patterns) is applied as one in the same with the-Mind (which is purely sentience—awareness), that is a definite misnomer: For thoughts and memory retainers are purely instinctive, and can function and be automatically stimulated even without the-Mind (i.e., in the absence of awareness). That’s right! Just like all the animal species that most all can think instinctively to survive, automatically, without the-Mind. Any animal creature doesn’t need to be aware to function with his/her own thoughts and memories (and with some humans too, if their minds somehow become mindless—in sleep, sort of say—while their memory and thought patterns are gradually being developed)—they are automatically stimulated by their five senses that are impacted by anything (e.g., hearing, looking, tasting, touching and smelling).

The concept and application of personification in animals, nature and things, is what causes confusion between what is distinct, and what is instinct. For example, the aphorism and axiom practice in personifying an idol (e.g., an idol that portrays a god/goddess) does not make the idol itself a person—the same in comparison to personifying an animal (e.g., a canine/feline pet, etc.) does not make it a person; so that the application of personification does not make a creature, nature (or thing), distinctive.

Even though there are variable different characteristic and personality instincts, that does not make them distinct, but only different—and here also lies the confusion when the concept of different is applied as one in the same with distinct. A creature can be different in instinct, but without the-Mind, that creature cannot still be distinctive, but only different. Just like flowers: a rose is different in appearance in comparison to a daisy—but they’re just different, and not distinctive: You may want to personify the rose and the daisy as both being separately distinctive; nevertheless, the application and disposition of personification does not make a person (distinctive)—and likewise with all animals.

Distinctive Manifestations

Unlike all the animal species, the human species are the sole ones to manifest creations and concepts in substances, ideology and reality. Most people are unaware that most and all of human creations are solely possible because of psychosomatic utilization and distribution—other than just our impacted automatic thought and memory instinctive patterns, because of the-Mind, only humans can also manipulate and maneuver our instinctive thoughts with distinctive influences. And even though the human instincts are far more superior than all the animal species, without the-Mind, they would still be just instinctive, and not distinctive.

Because of the immaterial mind that’s solely in all humans, other than automatically instinctively impacting changes, we can also willfully and intently influence changes, distinctively. This is evident in our ability to implement chronology(e.g., menology, chronometry, chronograph/chronometer, etc.)—to charge gender specifics(e.g., cisgender, transgender, agender, etc.)—to utilize thoughts(e.g., rumination, imagination, subvocalization, attribution theory, etc.)—to order identity(e.g., ego, solipsism, ipseity, individualism, name, etc.)—and to influence with the figurative heart(e.g., inclination, intuition, emotions, subjectivity/subjectivism, conscience, faith, etc.) is testimony that such manifestations would not be possible if it weren’t for the sole ability of the human psychosomatic capacity—to materialize in cynreality.

In conclusion, nothing is so distinctive without the-Mind—so that the-Mind itself is distinctive—from and by the-Mind itself.

Like this:

My instinct of surprise astounds my psyche-being on the more that IT comprehends its somatic form, of its own personage being. The more understanding of my dividuality is achieved, the more of my dividuality becomes even more of a dividual. My being use to think that my form of extroverold alien being was purely psyche (all psychological, and none physiological). However, with the understanding, as well as with my internal experience(s), of achieved knowledge, insight and wisdom, has impact a different (or more in depth) comprehension of my social and psyche alien-being.

Now that my being has realized the reality that thought process (consciousness) in all species is instinctive, and not distinctive (of the-Mind), IT has come to understand that since the psyche-being (e.g., the aspect of the personage phenomenon of the-Mind) is immaterial, and therefore, unable to retain mental formation(s), all that is then accumulated in explaining and identifying my extroverold alien is somatic—cerebrally recorded in a biological physical containment (the material brain) in its memory and thought patterns—whilst my psyche-being remains formless; and to no wonder then, why IT remains uniformed and immutable—as well as impervious to external changes.

Indeed then, when consciousness is used and applied as one in the same with sentience (the-Mind’s awareness), that is a definite misnomer.

Consciousness is nothing more but a thought process that exists in all species with a brain (vertebrate/invertebrate)—a cerebral/nerve-spinal retainer that functions instinctual thoughts and memories without awareness.

Simply Put…

If my immaterial mind was somehow removed from my material brain, and put into a new different material brain, my immaterial mind would then start anew, all over again (e.g., in tabula-rasa), and totally become a new understanding and comprehensive person—unless, however, my previous biological thoughts and memories pattern were restored in the new material brain.

And—if our minds were possible to jump into someone’s else fully developed brain, we wouldn’t be able to carry with us the thought and memory patterns from our own previous brains—and the memories and thought patterns in the other material brain, that our immaterial mind jumped into, would then become estranged (alien) to us.

So the figurative belief in “astral projection” may be impossible to achieve—for one would immediately forget everything, once one’s own mind would astral project from his/her own cerebral body.

So if it were still possible that our minds would depart after the death of our physical animating container (cerebral body), we would depart not knowing anything—for our minds departed from what was biologically achieved, and now terminated.

In Conclusion

My status of being the extroverold alien person is then not solely psyche, nor solely somatic, but a correlation of both the immaterial (psycho) and the material (soma), in paralleled condition(s): Simply put, purely psychosomatic.

(There are no plural to this concept; for every alphaversary that may exist, is different in comparison to each other: e.g., no two alphaversary are alike).

Origin:

Monospace, Vigercycle 6, 11 R.M. E.C. (Solar West): ENG alphaversary.

Word Origin & File

alphaversary

11 R.M. E.C., from Modern ENG, alphaversary: From alpha (GK prefix alpha-, meaning, “first in a sequence”) +versary (LT suffix –versare, meaning, “to turn”) = “To turn the attention to an aboriginal (e.g., to memorialize/commemorate a primary/first start.” “Alphaversary” entails the commemoration, or celebration, of an initial start that’s primary in comparison to any other beginnings that is following its own commencement. For example, if the biblical first man, Adam, was still alive, he would’ve been celebrating his own “alphaversary,” for he would have been the initial primary start of the human species: any other after him, would be subsidiary (assisting) beginners of the human species, in celebration of their own anniversaries instead. Another example, is that the biblical Satan is the alpha of The Rebellion; any other after him, are the following assisting demons (and humans) in rebellion against the biblical God.

Buddha Shakyamuni (born c. 6th–4th century BCE in Lumbini, India) is the founder, or the initial start (the alpha), of “Buddhism:” Any other after him, are subsidiary (assisting) beginners in Buddhism.

Since my own psyche-being (Sabiazoth) is the initial start in being the ‘no-self’ (the ‘not-I’), that’s solely chaste to ‘The-Self’ (the-Ego/the ‘I’), the concept and application of celebrating my “alphaversary” of my initial aboriginal being is accurate, because unlike any other ‘no-self’ (anatta), my ‘no-self’ (anego) has no former self whatsoever: Therefore, only my being can be the anego, of my kind.

Since my own psyche-being is also the sole initial start in being the extroverold alien, once again, celebrating my “alphaversary” of my aboriginal extroverold being is accurate; any other followers would be subsidiary (assisting) beginners in “extroverold beings,” celebrating anniversaries instead.

Not anyone can just apply the concept and application of “alphaversary.” Unless anyone has an initial aboriginal commencement to any first start, celebrating one’s own alphaversary will be a total inaccurate disposition: That would be a total misnomer; and possibly make one obstinate to continue in such disposition. The concept of Alpha entails the initial start, and not just any other following starts, thereafter its aboriginal root.

Like this:

The-World(s) is taken by the idea/faith of obtaining everlasting existence. Whether one is an atheist or religious, it seems that the concept of eternity is mostly within us all: You can hear it and read it just about everywhere (in songs, movies and books). This is evident just by the simple expressions that most would agree that love is everlasting. And if two individuals get intimately involved, and fall madly in love, they mostly utter to each other, “My love for you is forever.” And you don’t have to be religious to believe that a part of you goes on living for all eternity, even after death. One way or another, most people feel that they’re going to live forever, somehow.

Everlasting existence seem feasible for most believers. Most of our ancestors expressed eternal desires in variable myths, legends and scriptures: some of which you may have heard about; like the Fountain of Youth(about a Spanish explorer, Ponce De Leon, who went on seeking a fountain known to have restored youth for anyone who would drink of it, or bathe in it); the Elixir of life(also known as the Philosopher’s Stone, was a potion sought out by Alchemists, for it was believed to give eternal youth to its drinker); the Food of the Gods(about a specific required kind of food that only the gods were allowed to eat on a regular basis, in order to have maintained their immortality: even man would have gained immortality had they too ate from it); the Quest of the Holy Grail(about the chalice of which Jesus and His disciples drank from, during the Last Supper—that anyone finding such a chalice and drinks from it, would be granted an extraordinarily long life—almost eternal); the Shangri-La(about a hidden perfect place, often associated with long life, health and happiness—inspired by a 1933 novel, “Lost Horizon,” by James Hilton); and of course, the scriptural Garden of Eden(about the first man and woman—Adam and Eve—having lost their conditions of everlasting existence, due to both of their disobedience toward their Creator—Genesis2:17; 3:2,3,6,7).

Many people have sworn and testified that they had out-of-body experiences: either by astral projection/travel (e.g., when one’s own astral body/spirit leaves the physical body to travel in an astral plane, invisibly); or the belief in the immortality of the soul(e.g., when one’s own soul/spirit departs after the death of the physical body, and goes on living forever in a specific region of the universe, whatever it may be called); and the near death experiences(e.g., when at the brink of death—being clinically dead—one unusually experiences departing outside of the physical body, but recounts the experiences after his/her clinical recovery—seeing a tunnel of light is usually the common mental experiences in these cases). With these kind of testimonies, it is to no wonder why many tend to believe that some aspects of the human species are everlasting after all.

Many medical/surgical physicians that has witnessed their recovered clinically dead patients—recounting their near death experiences—have taken into their own account to test out those mental experiences, by placing permanent objects on top of high shelves in case a patient encounters a near death experience—these objects are not normally seen by those standing around it, but only be seen by those departing from their clinically dead bodies (or, from a top view only). Upon their patients clinical recoveries, many were asked by their physicians if they looked down at their dead bodies as they departed, and their answers were almost always yes: And if yes, the physicians would then ask if they noticed a top shelf in the room, and their answers were almost always yes: And if yes again, upon asking if they see anything on top of the shelf, they all almost always claimed it was empty—and the very little that answered that they did see something, they claimed they couldn’t remember. Mind you that these objects were placed unbeknownst to those clinically dead recovered patients: and not one test was ever satisfied.

In regards to astral projection, there are no solid grounds of such existences, simply because such astral encounters are solely partisan—never collectively: And for those who claimed to have astral travel in couples, or in groups, when they’re separated and isolated from each other to be questioned, each recounted astral adventures are always utterly different in the end.

And in regards to the theory of possessing the immortality of the soul, such belief is purely suggestive, that can only be mastery within the figurative heart: perhaps such a faith is the result of the fear of death, or just the desire to live forever. Regardless of what may have inspired such a faith, the theory of the immortal soul within humans can only be self-swaying, so that one can pow it as a truth to one-self, with no requirements of proof whatsoever—but in a collective framework, it still becomes effervescently real. The back-patting in most support groups can turn many beliefs into high spirits.

It seems that the-World(s) is permeated with the belief that we don’t die after all; and that to most, death is but an illusion. Some even suggest that our own experiences in consciousness becomes like an imprint in the cosmos of things: that when our physical bodies die, our memories and experiences don’t vanish, but remain as disembodied consciousnesses, merging forever into a whole consciousness of the universe. In spite of all these wonderful hopes of eternity, we need to know exactly what really determines eternity (if it ever began at all); but most importantly, can eternity even be created to begin with?

Everlasting Animus

Almost all people desire not to die—because most worry about leaving their loved ones behind—or being left behind by their deceased love ones. For some, the dread of losing all that was achieved and obtained becomes devastating. It is then understandable the need to believe in an afterlife. Some are comforted with the idea that their dead loved ones are somewhere in heaven, with God or in the universe; and somehow, that they’re being watched and guided by them from up above. It’s so hard to accept death because it’s so final. Nevertheless, some do welcome death due to constant illness, suffering, poverty, natural disasters, segregation, crimes and injustices. Some have been sick all their lives that they welcome death with open arms, and even with open hearts. So if life is a blessing to some, death becomes their enemy: but if life is a curse to some, death then becomes their friend. Regardless whatever death may mean to any individual, the end is only the result of what begins. If nothing begins, nothing then dies.

The etymology of the concept of everlasting stems from the early 13th century—it began its use as a colloquial expression to explain something or someone who would last very exceedingly (like the mountains, the earth, and the stars), but not necessarily eternal: so that, if we were to somehow obtain everlasting life, that would only mean that we’ll just live longer than our usual current lifespans; and maybe long enough to see the sun finally come to an end from its also very exceedingly (everlasting) existence: So that in the end, all will eventually reach to its finale.

Even my own being once understood that the concept of everlasting existence was one in the same with eternity: but it wasn’t until a little after IT finished my article, “Chronology (a State Of Time),” that IT then realized something was different about the term everlasting. Hence, the need to write this article to correct my former article arose, while simultaneously learning the concept of everlasting for what it truly is.

Combining the colloquial expression of everlasting with the formal concept of eternity, only confuses the whole concept of creation. According to my research on some of the several biblical encyclopedias and essays my being found in the Internet, IT noticed that many theologians desegregated the ideas of everlasting with eternal, thus obscuring its origin from the Hebrew word, olam(עולם—oh-LAHM), from their sacred dead sea scrolls, which means eternal: but most Judaism leaders (rabbis) impersonate olam with eternity; and you’ll soon know the reason why they needed to establish a quasi-olam. But there are other Hebrew expressions that may just coincide with the colloquial expression of everlasting; such as, לְעוֹלָם (leh-oh-LAHM), meaning forever; and לָנֶצַח (lah-NEH-tsahkh), meaning forever as well; and לְתָמִיד (leh-tah-MEED), meaning for always. These Hebraic expressions, however, are connected to plural chronological concepts when referring to something, or someone, lasting for a long duration of times—(פעמים—times) as in, times long-lasting; or, lasting for long times; and even in, lasting for generations to come: Maybe twice the time, or thrice the time, or quince the time: etc.).

The God of Hebrews is always referred to as the Eternal God, and not as the Everlasting God: but just as most rabbis intentionally work so hard to hide and protect the true name and pronunciation of God from commoners, they also take advantage in the obscurity of the Hebrew word olam, in order to further protect their God from the gentiles even deeper—hence, the need for a quasi-olam interpretation. And they’ve even adopted the spelling format G_d for their God, pretentiously suggesting to the outsiders that the title “God” is the actual name of their Creator, and that by spelling it with an underscore to replace the letter ‘o’ between ‘G’ and ‘D,’ they’re protecting His name; and thus really diverting gentiles from trying to find out the true pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which is actually God’s real name. Nonetheless, the English colloquial transliteration of the Hebrew olam confuses the true concept of creation in a great deal, and adds to the illusion that a substance can be created as eternal from scratch. Let’s first consider the forensics of everlasting in contrast to eternal—to see if this is even biblically possible.

When you segregate the prefix from the suffix of the word everlasting, you will notice that the word in of itself becomes transparent, and their obscurities begin to vanish. The O.E. prefix æfre (ever-), is referred to as, “at any time:” and the O.E. suffix –lasting, is referred to as, “continuing in time:” combining them whole, the concept then becomes clear, which means that one continues in time, at any given time—lasting, therefore, for a very exceedingly duration in times and generations to come: And we all know that anything/anyone that initially start in time is transient, and not eternal. In comparison, the etymology of the word eternal stems from the Latin aeternus: from this root, the word eternal is inscribed with aging that’s lasting and enduring; hence, suggesting that eternal is one in the same with everlasting. But that is where the error lies—that eternal too is aging, eventually.

In the Hebrew word olam (eternal), its meaning is bounded with ranks, as to whether the ranks are higher or lower in position, power, degree and condition. In some cases, olam is closely fixed with the arrangement of rows—connected and organized. Also, depending on the nature of the object and subject referred to, olam is nearly matched with class of regions, or dimensions. For example, the word paternal is biblically considered to be a rank that is atop maternal (for the head of household is the husband); so together, arranged in rows, paternal would be placed as a higher administration above maternal. The prefix e-, of the word eternal, indicates that something or someone is out of (or, outside) of whatever its suffix may be: It’s pretty much almost the same with the prefix ex-, as in the word external—which, in this usage, the word is referring to a region or dimension that is outside of the one compared to. In the sense of Eternal, as in olam, the word itself is referring to something or someone who is the apex of ranks—the incomparable line of arranged rows—the being outside/beyond of ephemeral existence and time—and the supreme magnitude and authority of condition, power and position. The sense and concept of eternal (olam) is therefore without beginning and end (outside and beyond of alpha and omega). With this in mind, it is also important to understand that the suffix of the English word eternal, which is “ternal,” stems from the Latin word ternus; and it means, “at a time,” sequentially (e.g., one at a time: two at a time: three at a time: etc.): This then indicates that the God of Hebrews (aka, the biblical God) is outside/beyond of time in all of its entirety; hence, ‘He’ is eternally outside of time, but not as an eternity inside of time. You may be wondering what is the difference between eternal and eternity?

The etymology of the word eternity stems from the Latin aeternitatem(in the subject of a verb, it is the Latin aeternitas)—in Hebrew, the word eternity is written as נצח (NEH-tsahkh): and they’re both pretty much the same in the meaning of the word, which is referred to something or someone of aging substance that was turned (granted) to live forever within infinite time: The Eternal that can deservedly and righteously then grant eternity (or, eternal life—life that’s outside of ephemeral existence, but still not outside of time in its entirety: because although one may be granted never to reach death, one’s own condition of origin is impossible to be changed as remaining alive without origin) to any creation and creature. So even though we can be granted eternal life by the biblical God, we’re still not the eternals, but only the eternities(i.e., the origins without finales—beginners without death—life without end). We can now clearly see that the concept of eternal is not one in the same with the concept of everlasting; not even in the least. With all this in mind, and with the granting of eternity being possible by the biblical God, can eternity also be created from scratch? Can it be, innate?

Generating Eternity

In order to answer both questions, we have to go back to the very biblical start of mankind—a story that almost all of us are familiar with—of Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden.

We’re almost all familiar that the biblical Creator, along with its First Creation (that’ll be the, us, in the scriptures—Genesis 1:26), created the first man and woman in their likeness; and that the entire earth, and all of its treasures, foods and creatures, were given to them to have under, and to rule over (Genesis 1:28-30): All expect for two particular trees that were in the middle of the garden (which were the tree of the knowledge of good and bad; and the tree of eternal life—Genesis 2:16, 17; 3:1-3, 22, 24). Since they both disobeyed God by eating of the tree they were told not to eat from, lest they die, death was the end result of their judgement for their disobedience (Genesis 3:16-19). In accordance to this biblical circumstance, the capacity for eternal life was then never literally introduced in our DNA structure—Adam never got to bite the fruit of the tree of eternal life. Hence, there is no actual hidden fountain of youth within us, but only the view (the imagination) of living forever: Based on this unfortunate biblical occurrence, you can definitely then forget about the belief of humans possessing immortal souls, that depart after our deaths—it’s not happening—thanks to the first man, Adam.

The two trees in the middle of the garden were put there for probably several reasons: one of them is to establish who is the ruler and law-maker above them: and secondly, probably to eventually had them first both eat of the tree of knowledge (but, only when God said they could): And if they did well with that knowledge they both acquired (in accordance to God’s will, that is), they probably would have been given permission to go and eat of the tree of life (eternal life) and live forever—as their reward to have passed their probationary period to God’s satisfactory. But they relied in their own understanding instead, and went on and eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, and both died for it. According to the bible, because of their disobedience, the only thing that our generation now generates is death, as opposed to eternity (Romans 5:12). But the bible indicates further that all is still not in vain; because eventually, at an appointed time—and through the propitiatory sacrifice of his First Creation (Jesus Christ)—God will restore mankind to ‘Him,’ just as ‘He’ had intended to be close with mankind (one on one) from the beginning—John 3:16; Revelation 21:1, 3, 4; Psalms 37:29.

Because of all the obscurities that lies with the concepts of everlasting, forever, eternal and eternity, many people believe that since Adam and Eve were created perfectly, they had to have been created with eternal life from scratch. Au contraire: for if that were so, the tree of eternal life would not have been positioned in the middle of the garden, along with the tree of knowledge. The matter of fact is that everything that’s created from scratch, is automatically created as ephemeral, or it wouldn’t be a creation to begin with. The only thing that determines what is the start, is the end. It is impossible to freshly create something without end, for that would then entail to create something also without beginning: And you can’t begin what is without a beginning; just the same as you can’t create something without origin—nor can something, or someone already with origin, can be turned into one remaining alive without origin—this kind of divine effort from such an attempt (that even if God wanted to), will only result in death. So anything that starts from scratch, is automatically conditioned as temporal lasting. Therefore, it is impossible for the biblical God to create something, or someone, without end from square one. And it is also impossible for the God of the bible to change the condition of something/someone with origin, into a condition of something/someone without origin, while still remaining alive—that’s a limitation that solely concerns The Eternal.

Now, if Adam and Eve would have obeyed God in the Garden of Eden, to then have been rewarded with eternal life for their patience and trust in God’s command and understanding, we instead would have been generated with eternity: So that even though eternity can’t be created from scratch, it can, however, be procreated (innately pass on) from our ancestors that were turned into eternity for our infinite generations to come; forever.

Even the Primary Alpha (the start of all creations—Jesus), was no exception to the rule when being created from scratch by God itself. Even he had to have earned the capacity to exist as the eternity god, way before he was sent down to earth. Just like Adam too, who would’ve remained as the Subordinate Alpha (the start of mankind) had he endured as obedient to God: But unlike the main alpha, Adam failed us and became the end of us all. So it had to had taken the initial alpha(the first start) to offer him-self as a sacrifice, to replace the following alpha(the second start) that has failed us—in order to then save mankind. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that even if God wanted to offer Himself as a sacrifice to save all mankind, although He is unimaginably more powerful than Jesus, He couldn’t do it; simply because He is without alpha, and therefore, impossible to have become the omega for us—to save us from sin and death: In this kind of offering situation, the scale of justice (to undo the unjust of Adam) would not have compensated evenly in weight. No other sacrifice than Jesus, greater or smaller, would have ever sufficed.

By the way, to consider the word alpha equated with any other following beginnings, is a misnomer. Alpha is properly connoted with a first initial start to everything, or everybody: anything else after the initial start, is solely considered as the followings of beginnings. Alpha could also be applied to impacts and changes due to initial starts of someone else’s doing (e.g., Satan is the alpha—the start—of rebellion; any other would be the following, like the demons). Alpha can further be applied as a state of mind and being; like my very own being, that’s the alpha—the start—of the no-self (the ‘Not-I’) that’s chaste to The-Self (the-ego/the “I”); any other after my initial start, would be the following. If the concept of alpha is not clear, just as I have made it transparent here, all concepts connoting with the the ideas of beginning and start will remain ambiguous. You could begin something, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ve started it.

Immortal (beyond Eternal)

In comparing both concepts of Immortal and immortality, would be the same approach as comparing both meanings of eternal and eternity—as we have done above. So, just as there’s only One that is The Eternal, likewise, there’s only One that is The Immortal. The prefix im-, of the Latin word immortalis, means “the opposite of”—not to be mistaken as a negating format (which is, to make invalid; or, to nullify): in Hebrews, the wording of immortal is unusually expressed as, “בן-אלמוות”—a word not necessarily used in Hebrew dialect—unless it is used when a disputed idea is proved a gentile nature (e.g., proving that the belief in the “immortally” soul is purely of gentile root—outside of Judaism): Many rabbis also intentionally use the word immortal to obscure it with the same meaning of their quasi-olam(עולם—oh-LAHM) word, eternity. Now, the concept of mortal stems from the Latin word mortalis, and it means a substance that’s subject to death (perishable under any circumstance). So, combiningim-(opposite of) +mor-(death) +-tal(of such kind, from the L. -talis) =the opposite of death kind: This is important to understand, because the concept of immortal is referring to a kind (such as a definitive class) that’s imperishable over any circumstance; and therefore, deathless. The only person that can be deathless in one’s own true being, is the One that is without a beginning—the very One that is also known as The Eternal; but unlike the concept of eternal, the word immortal is not just referring to a state of existence, but also to a structure and condition of a certain sort (like a degree of some kind of an exactness)—a grade, that’s impossible to grant to a human, even with eternity given. Why is that? How can that be that a human is not immortal even if he/she is granted with eternal life?

When a human is granted with eternal life, one is still in possession of a corruptible body even though one can live a life without end. How’s that!? You may ask surprisingly: Well, for example, if you were flying in a plane, and had an accident by falling in an active volcano, you would still be consumed in its fire even with eternal life in your possession. If that were to happen, the biblical God would then have to bring you back to life, to keep His word that you will live forever. But if you intentionally caused your eternal life to end at your own hands, the biblical God will not bring you back. How’s that possible, and why is that? You may ask: Well, a human with eternal life is still responsible to maintain his/her ageless body in good condition, forever. Let’s say if you were to decide not to eat any longer, nor hydrate your body with water; or, decided to take a knowingly risk attempt in flying off a plane with an accidental failure in parachuting, and you plunge into your death either by hitting the ground, or by drowning in the sea, God will not bring you back to life again—because you knew the risks—and you knew that if you intentionally stop eating food and drinking water, your eternity lifespan will eventually end. Why!? How can that be? You may ask: Because the kind that your body is composed of, it is still of corruptible nature if you don’t maintain it properly, for all eternity: Just because one is given eternal life, that doesn’t mean that one can just sit back and let God take care of the rest—you would still be responsible in keeping your own ageless body alive: With eternal life granted, one too can’t expect to test God by taking a rocket into space, and come out of your spaceship, without your space suite on, and expect to breathe with your ageless lungs with no air whatsoever. Granting one with eternal life does not exclude one from the laws of God either, which means that you’re still dependent of God; therefore, you can still end by committing a crime against God’s laws—that’s deserving and punishable by death. Your body may not naturally age anymore, but it can still corrupt by your negligence—and end by disobeying and rebelling against divine authority (e.g., because of his rebellion against God, Satan will soon be terminated at his appointed time even though he was given eternal life). Does that then mean that a human can never be granted immortality, but only eternity?

As confusing as my answer can be, that would still be a no: a human can still be granted immortality, after all. But how, then? The concept of the word immortality stems from the Latin root of immortalitatem (in the subject of a verb, it is immortalitas), and it indicates a kind (a power) that was transformed into a structure that now exists as imperishable (incorruptible) over death: Unlike the wording immortal, the im- prefix in the wording of immortality is negated (i.e., to cancel; to nullify; to neutralize)—to cancel out first before granting. This then indicates that if a human is to be granted immortality, one must first be transformed into a kind that can exist with immortal life when it is given. In other words, a human that is granted immortality can no longer remain a human: With or without eternity, his/her human corruptible body must be canceled out first, in exchange for a new potential incorruptible construct when finally the power of immortality is granted to it—that can then only live up where God Himself reside, along with all the others (i.e., it takes a dual process to grant a human with immortality, as opposed to granting eternity—which is by a singular process): In this way, one is then imperishable (deathless) under any circumstance (1st Peter 1:3, 4). That would mean, that the human who is transformed to be granted with immortality, would then become self-sustaining, and no longer in need of God’s provisions to remain alive. That is why the biblical God is very careful as to whom He is granting immortality—not even the angels are granted with such powers, nor the Cherubs themselves—only from the earth, a few will be chosen to be granted immortality (Revelation 14:1,3). So before God endows a human with such power and capacity, He knows first who would not betray and abandon Him, and then decides to become one’s own self-sustaining immortality god.

So the ideology that humans can possess immortality, remaining as humans, is bizarre and impossible. Even with eternity granted, you would still first need a body that’s not built with the need of external provisions in order to keep surviving; and that nothing else can destroy it, not even our sun—not even God itself. If you’re eternalized in the earth, you would still need food, water, air, the sun, the moon, the trees and green vegetation, and all the animals and insects to survive: In other words, even with eternity given, you would still need to be dependent of God’s sustenance to help you maintain your eternal life. But if you’re immortalized (in a literal sense) in with God’s presence above, then you’re no longer depended of God’s sustenance, for unlike all the angels, you’ve become self-sustaining with an incorruptible body that can withstand against any power that may come at you, even against an unimaginable amount of gamma-ray bursts: Nevertheless, still with the expectation that you, in good faith, won’t put your immortality against God’s authority, and remain with him in doing His will—because even if you’ve been literally immortalized, you’re still not The Immortal—you still have a beginning. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, that you’ve been granted to exist as an immortality god, but then decides to rebel and abandon God, although it’s true that God can’t destroy you, that doesn’t mean that He can’t immobilize you for all immortality—that is, as a final punishment for your rebellion/disobedience. At this point of this paragraph, you’re probably beginning to realize that immortality is not just a state of existence, but a state of power—a God like immortality power—a power even beyond all the angels, of all ranks—a power not even Satan possess; this must be killing Satan in rage, that a few humans (that he considers as way below him) are going to be transformed to possess a power that he wish he had—what a blow to his ego if he has one: Surely then, you can now see how impossible it is for a human to be God like, while remaining as a human.

Hence, God is both The Eternal and The Immortal; but man, remaining as man, can only become the eternities, but never the immortalities (immortality gods). The idea of some humans becoming as the immortals is untrue, because even God, with all of His unimaginable powers, would be impossible to grant any man immortality, as in his true human form of nature (independent of God’s provision) while still living in earth, surviving in God’s provisions from the earth—the flesh is not constructed with the potential of incorruptible capacity and power if immortality is to be granted to it; instead, it will annihilate the flesh. Human construct can’t enhouse immortality powers.

In conclusion, it is logical to reason that although it is possible for the biblical God to create someone with everlasting life from scratch, it is impossible, however, for that very God to create someone with eternal and immortal life, as the initial start. Since everlasting life/existence is not really one in the same as to live and exist forever (as we have learned in our early chapters of this article), the concept of creation is then transparent, and no longer obscure. Therefore, with every initial creation, there is the end; but with every following procreation, there is the possibility of no end. Although eternity and immortality cannot become the alpha (the initial start itself); they can, however, be transformed up in heaven if it’s immortality, or be given for the following earthly generations to come if it’s eternity. Hence, it turns out to be that forever is forever, after all!

Indeed—eternal is beyond creation—and immortal is beyond eternal—in both each of their entirety.

Like this:

Time is all around us. Where ever we turn, we see time. We can’t seem to get away from time. You even hear time when people utters, “Time flies so fast,” or, “Time heals all wombs,” or, “What time is it?” We see it, hear it, build it, schedule our lives around it, and make plans in accordance to it. However, if it weren’t for clocks, watches and calendars, it couldn’t be found literally. If we remove all the created gadgets that’s connoted with time, we would not see it: In other words, time is not a precondition substance the way that nature is before our coming into existence. Hence, time comes after us; after our own creations: from the idealistic concepts within our minds, in order to make sense of all the related transient creations—including us. The fact that the concept of creation exists for us all and everything else, is an indication that every creation and creature is a product of commencement (i.e., we are a sole product/race of beginners), to then imminently end in time: Thus proving that our source of origin is of transient existence. Therefore, if indeed time were a universal precondition energy, it would solely govern every single thing with a beginning—every single creation. As a matter of fact, the following computation would be just (e.g., Beginning +Creation – Ending =Time). Hence, all products of “time” is then everlasting transient in everlasting time itself.

The odd thing about this whole concept of time, is that my mind simply cannot experience it. Mine eyes can see the manifestation of time gadgets, but my being can’t seem to correlate with it: Simply put, the idea, concept and actuation of time is utterly devoid in my mind. Because my mind is barren of time, my being had to select a substantial substitute to help IT prepare IT with life and determinations, in an organizational approach and fashion. So instead of using time to make sense of my transient existence, occurrences and experiences, my being instead uses space. Depending upon the condition, the occurrence and the happening at hand, my being breaks that space in multiple and sequence of expanded/extended span(s). In order to get a better understanding of my timeless awareness and experiences, you can click on the following link article at, “Spatian.”

It is then within my reason and logic that if indeed the concept of time was truly a universal precondition element, my being too would then have been conditioned with such chronological skill and function: but the fact that my mind is sterile of time, it proves to my being that time is then really a perception that’s understood as a supposition; especially, when a group of people can experience time in multiple different paces at “one-time” in the same occupied space. Hence, time is then an intimateself-thesis approach, that posits in reflection, connection and understanding to all that which is transient.

The concept of time comes from the Old English word tima; which means, a “limited space of time:” therefore, meaning that a certain extended measure of space is used in a form that’s limited as a temporal passage: And this inserted temporal passage, in the infinite space, is then termed as “time.” In this concept, the infinite formless space now has multiple encompassed formations that are transient: In other words, the infinite space that is formless (uncreated), and without a beginning, now retains circumscribed gravitational formations that are finite and temporary (with everlasting continuous new cycles of beginnings and endings). In this fashion (and if time were to be an actual substance), time itself then goes on as everlasting time in the everlasting existence of space. Therefore, if space itself was not without a beginning, time itself would not then begin; for time itself cannot begin in time if it has no space to begin in.

With all this in mind, we need to then ask ourselves, what actually is time? Is it a law of physics? Is it a force of the universe that ordains occurrences and events? Dose it determines futuristic outcomes? Are the past, present and future in constant simultaneous existence? And finally, is time a reality, or just a state of mind? All these questions will be answered with so much clarity, in the following distinctive categorized paragraphs.

Time-Oddity

This kind of personal time (i.e., self-intimate with time) is subjective with a figurative application and disposition that only capacitates one to make some changes, or personally evolve, individually with time: Becoming therefore, time itself in the psyche. In this personal fashion, one is able to hold dear and put values with one’s own time; intimately integrating one’s own past, present and future as a whole, harmoniously. This is why my being terms this kind of chronological state as, “Individual Time.” A time discriminate isolated, and a time that can only belong and be experienced exclusively to one person (e.g., because every singular time is unique, there are no two alike); and therefore, becoming and connecting very intimately with it. Almost anything goes in this kind of chronological state of mind; hence the term “Time-Oddity” for this paragraph: For in one’s own private space (alone time), this kind of time can be or become anything one would want it to be.

Personal chronology can be very confusing; especially, if one thinks he/she can share it with another individual, intimately or platonically. The fact is, such a distinctive time really can’t be shared, not even on a mutual basis; because as mentioned before, no two personal times are alike. If an individual insists to share such a time, things may become surreal to one of the two parties, or both; and time then becomes purely collectively illusive as a quasi, because such a time can only be whole as individually. The moment one tries to part one’s own personal time with somebody else (even if it’s parted with the best of intimate intentions), it ceases entirely, because its whole meaning and purpose is thoroughly altered. In order to avoid this kind of illusion and confusion, what one needs to do is make a separate new time that solely belongs to the two individuals, monogamously: becoming therefore, a new form of “Individual Time:” in whereas the term individual in this new dual time formation takes on a different meaning, which is, “unable to divide.” In this way, a sole personal time is still achieved for two separate individuals, sharing a different kind of “Individual Time” together. Any other time that one encounters with other individuals can still be termed differently, even without sharing one’s own personal time; depending of course, who is the individual(s) one is visiting (e.g., family time; friends time; congregational time; community time; etc.).

As odd as this is, coming from a spatian person as such is my being, IT can still notice (as an outside observer) that personal time should be cherished like one’s own treasure(s): It should be appreciated, cared for, and without abusing it; because what one puts into his/her own personal time, is exactly what one gets back from it. Your personal time becomes what you make it to be: And sacrificing it will only leave you entirely without it; without you.

Personal time is crucial for a sole individual as opposed to dual/collective individuality. One can positively take advantage of it by means of self-reflecting in meditation. Taking out time for one-self is the best way one can access personal-time directly: to then contemplate on constructive changes, psychological evolution, and develop gradual inspiring dispositions.

Personal time is a self-consummated pact, and it must not be confused with a dual whole or collective whole with other individuals, for there is no such a state in a singular whole; they’re all totally different, one from each other. If and when their demarcations are not clarified, time then becomes confusing (sort of mysterious), and out-of-order for an individual’s experiences of mental personal chronology. The application, disposition and understanding of personal time is an exclusive singular matter (and it must be remembered and kept as such). The reality of it all is that anything that is shared is fractional, and never personal. The appropriate term for two people seemingly sharing their personal times with each other (even if it’s for a one-night stand; or just becoming friends with benefits) is still then not personal, but only private. “Private time,” or, “intimate time,” would then be most appropriate when one’s own personal time is set aside for a very transient intimate setting with another (unless it becomes with prejudice: monogamously), but still, never solely personal, just dually private.

So cherish your personal time (your “Time-Oddity”) with your-self, and make it whatever it is that you want to make of it (as long as it is within constructive metaphors if not within logical measures: and as long as you don’t allow it to become illusive, and far away from you). So while you’re at it, caress it, absorb it, and make love to it; but above all, become one with it: for that is the way and the language of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”) itself.

Time-Equality

This kind of collective concrete time (e.g., calendars, watches, and clocks) is objective, a common law, a literal manifestation, that constructs and organizes our world(s), so that as a collective social consciousness, together we can fashion and maintain our institution of families, neighbors, religions, jobs and communities in an orderly and conventional manner. Even though collective time may seem concrete, it is nevertheless, cynreality and not just reality.

Collective time is sort of an illusion; an illusion, not in the sense that it isn’t real, but in the sense that it isn’t really what it seems to be. You see many wrist watches on others, or big public square clocks that ticktock outside, with the understanding of their concepts of hours, minutes and seconds; and then, there are also your solar and lunar calendars (some with astrological birth assignment dates) that are applicable with the concepts of years, months, weeks, days, and some with astrological reading insertions: It is then to no wonder that people actually believe that time in of itself is an actual substance and energy that governs all the outcomes of imminent futures. In accordance to time connoted gadgets, people are able to collectively get up to go to work; have their children go to school if they have any; maybe do some volunteering work for communities in need; perhaps participating in preaching certain religious/biblical good news to public bystanders; some maybe will do domestic chores in their houses if they have the time to do so; or even go shopping: But no matter what everyone is doing, depending in which region of the earth people live in, most are up (if not in the same hour, but in the same date and week. Whether some people are going to sleep while others are getting up simultaneously (within the same time region), most would agree on the hour and minutes they see with their clocks/watches. This is when time becomes somehow mutually balanced: In this fashion, most people are concertedly experiencing time with some equilibrium mental state. Hence, for this very timed conjoint application, many will stipulate in unison that time is after all, an actuality.

The fact remains, though, that “Time-Equality” is still not global, but only regional. There is a great amount of multiple collective times all over the-Worlds, so that in all realty, “Time-Equality” is still a state of collective regional minds. No matter how concrete time may look with all the chronological gadgets in all of the-Worlds, it still doesn’t make it real separate from its concept. Conceptual time in unison does not make actual time.

Nevertheless, in large local community settings, collective time is still very useful to set up appointments and community events, to establish employment and public transportation hours, to educate in schools, and to keep track of historical events; and yes, even to determine worship hours in churches, shrines and temples—all in perfect unison (at least in thought). The problem, however, with collective timing is that it becomes too socially steep, that it permeates as a true reality (it becomes so real when it isn’t): Too real, that even physicists claim that time in of itself is a law of physics, relative with space, in order to somehow make any chronological sense with the universe in accordance with Einstein’s general and special relativity. No matter how concrete and mutually substantiated collective timing may seem, time in of itself is still just a state of mind, a concept; an idea that’s put into practice: and made applicable for many to be disposed in accordance to unison chronology.

Time-Morphology

This kind of physiological time (e.g., an inborn biological clock that controls creatures on regular timing cycles) is empirical; an observational conjecture that seem factual. Many physicists and scientists uses this speculation to support their position that time is, after all, real and relative to life as well. But terming innate physiological mechanisms that automatically function nature and creatures in a seemingly chronological fashion, doesn’t make time inherently and biologically true: It’s just the same as in the personification with animals, that does not really prove them as persons. Even if we, as human species, were not here and only the animals were to exist, even in the total absence of human chronological concepts, the animals’ organisms would still automatically function in the same way. In other words, we as the human species and all other animating and inanimate species, function as automatons: all on their own, independently of time. Our souls (that is, our literal animating physical bodies: and not referring to the belief of the metaphorical intangible soul) are structured to function as autonomous from any kind of chronological conceptual influences. If you eradicate entirely the concept of time, and its mental actuated influences, my being guarantees that everything will function as usual, automatically.

The famous global idea of a “biological-clock” is not necessarily so, but perhaps, only in symbolical application. Such a clock is just a mental perception of the ego’s reflection, that’s trying to make sense in connection with one’s own automatic bio-functions; that repeats in almost equalized computational cycles. In all reality then, a female’s menstrual cycle is not timely, but instead biologically arranged to function routinely, automatically(e.g., just like computers that are programmed to automatically respond to certain inputs: Likewise, our animating physical souls are nervy-programmed to respond to certain environmental impacts, and influences from other individuals). Nevertheless, a human conditional female has the right to figuratively refer to her menstrual cycles as her “biological clock.” But if my soul was conditionally inborn as female gender, then my psyche-being, as a spatian, would have probably refer my menstrual cycles as my routine fertilization.

The functions of every single organism and microorganism, of every physiological and biological make ups, are automatically disposed by their own arranged physio and bio constructs; but definitely, not by time. So as it stands, timing biologically does not prove real a biological clock.

Time-Contiguity

This kind of coexisting multiple properties of “space-time” (e.g., the simultaneous space-time properties of apast, of apresent and of afuture) is purely transcendental. An unconditional psyche experience of a geometric three-dimensional times, that are simultaneously relative to specific parallel time-space(s): And therefore, allowing brainstorming and approximations to make sense of one’s own experiences within their own perceived chronological existences; that is, in relation to seemingly continuing time-sequences (interval, and or closure). This kind of simultaneous time structures helps one to deliberate mysterious problematic events and situations in their chronological proximity: that is, to explain the unexplained, and to suppose solutions to unknown reasons as to why certain things happen the way that they do: Hence the explanation, that everything happens for a reason. For example, if one is discouraged of one’s own past, one may look up a medium, to look into or discuss predetermined outcomes of one’s own future, so that in one’s own present stage, he/she can try to alter certain decisions to enforce changes against fate for a better future. This kind of multiple dimensional time structure gives an individual the capacity to ordain and control certain events and situations in an organized interval/closure sequences. It is also popularly known that humans can psychologically evolve to become better people from their pasts, right through their presents, and on into their futures: exclaiming that who they were in their pasts, has changed in their presents, to eventually become better (or even entirely different) in their futures.

The disadvantage of possessing multiple dimensional times is that a human person can only possess transient interval personages, in whereas one’s own identity is imminent to change and not remain impervious throughout all continuous time sequences (e.g., a mother becomes a teacher during employment hours; she then may become a preacher during religious congregational hours; and perhaps she may become a counselor during voluntary community hours; she then returns to become a mother again during every afternoon and evening family hours—thus time enforcing this mother to change in between transient-personages in a “timely” basis); therefore, compelling imminent identity changes upon any time minded individual—resulting in that individuality is then vulnerable to time—never impenetrable. With 3 dimensional timing, every single existing thing, animal and human, are all transient within their status of existences; even the universe itself is known to be transient in its own existence: And even a god, or the God of the bible, are also deemed temporal as well. In multiform timing, nothing in itself can exist as everlastingly; however, the transitional and transient cycles themselves are perpetual (e.g., for every beginning that begins within time, must also end within time). Hence, the only thing that simultaneous timing proves, is that such a time itself is “everlasting time” (i.e., nothing in of itself can actually exist as forever in “everlasting time,” except, for time itself: so that everything in everlasting time begins and ends forever).

It is almost globally accepted that the scheme of a past is what determines the outcome of the scheme of a future: However, reversely to some, it is believed that a predetermined scheme of a future is what really determines the outcome of the scheme of a past: and that the scheme of a present is a transitional juncture that is determined by both the schemes of a past and of a future. If such schemes were to really exist as absolutes, we would definitely not have a say at all within our lifespans, in the schemes of chronology: And the capacity for humans to then possess the disposition of volition would be for naught (and a lie). Hence, it is logical to conclude that the simultaneous three-dimensional times are purely transcendental (a superlative idea that’s only transcending in thought, understanding and disposition).

If scientists and physicists were to even idealize an empirical method of 3 dimensional time thesis, that allows them to speculate some sense with themselves in relation to space, creation and life, such proposed conjecture will only remain as pragmatic—no matter how surrendering such approach and position may read, sound and be agreed with.

Words like moment and now, are also part of simultaneous multi-times scheme, because, such words indicate a brief period (or in the immediate future) of time: That even if a spatian person, as such is my being, is mentally timeless, one would still have to use words like “moment” to solely help others (who are time minded) understand them-selves in their own scheme of times. But words like “now” is not necessarily solely connoted with multi-dimensional time schemes: Even a spatian person can use words like “now” in congruent with space (e.g., as this instant in space/span). If you, a mental chronological individual, could entirely eradicate any transcending multi-time scheme from your mind, you might realize that your entire outlook in life and with others, not only changes, but becomes foreign: And words like moment, tomorrow, yesterday, today, week and year now ceases from its truth, power and governing position; and starts to then become superficial (just a mental magnitude) from its former multi-dimensional times scheme of the cosmos.

Because the transcending idea of a three-dimensional time is being applied so literally in the-World(s) today, that is, as in conditional timing (e.g., such as with clocks, watches, calendars, etc.), the transcending time is then instead descending from its mental ascension: reducing its unconditional time status to an apparent and cosmetic condition. The matter of the fact is, that just because the concept of time has been somehow produced and manufactured in a seemingly cynreality, it doesn’t mean that it’s going to function as the same from its unconditional mental state, to its now conditional physical status. A clock and a calendar (or any other sophisticated chronological gadget) cannot help one to literally travel back to one’s own past, or forward into one’s own future, just as if one would be taking a public transportation to reach B from A in a matter of two hours. To suggest that mental unconditional time can be applied just as the same in physical conditional time, will only cause people to apply time elusively, and illusively: In other words, when a physicist exclaim that the earth is “now” being bombarded with remnants from the empirical Big-Bang, of some 14 billion years ago in the distant past, that indeed is entirely illusive; because a distance in space does not determine time itself (nor does time itself determines spaced distances); but only the unformed space measured in between the objects themselves is what determines the distance itself: so that, no matter how great the distance is, the objects at each end do not exist in different chronological states, but only in different span of formation states (e.g., the formation states of the planets, moons, stars, etc.). However, to still help chronological state of mind individuals understand actual unconditional distances in the cosmos, we can actually use our earthly conditional time-table as the bedrock comparison for all other objects in the universe (e.g., like the way it’s used to determine how long is one day in the planet Venus, in comparison to how long is one day in our planet Earth), instead of using the simultaneous 3 dimensional times table in determining distances: This way, we can avoid creating the illusion that somewhere far away in space from us, the past literally still exists, and that we are in an area of the cosmos where the present or future will always literally exist in.

No matter how great the unformed distance may be between two formed objects in the cosmos of things, each point at each end would not differentiate at all in chronological states: no matter how far the conditional objects may be from each other, or how long the unconditional distance may be. Mathematical measurements and calculations is what really determine actual distances in space, and not conceptual chronological measurements and calculations; at least, not in actuality even though it does seem to make some sense in the field of astronomical applications. Nevertheless, just because it works for now, that doesn’t mean it’ll actually work in the long run (e.g., cars running on carbon dioxide exhausts was a great idea that worked for “now,” then: However, in the long run, those cars contribute to greenhouse effect/global warming).

When a transcending (unconditional) idea is applied as a literal physical manifestation (as conditional), the now excelled concept that’s turned seemingly real will only descend from its ascension in the long run. In other words, in the long run, man’s time will fail man as a concrete objective.

Time-Velocity

This kind of paced sense of time (e.g., a rated sense of speed in time) gives the mental experience that in various occasions (separately alone, or simultaneously together with others), time is either accelerating or decelerating. It seems that when people are at their most impatient moment, the rate of time slows down very much: But when things become too busy, or that things are just about becoming way too fun, the rate of time is then very fast. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement that the concept of time of many individuals, having various speeds in one single “momentum” in their mental awareness and experiences, is enough to logically conclude that the pace of time is after all partisan, singularly or collectively.

There are even some scientists and physicists exclaiming that time in our universe varies from place to place (e.g., there is a scientific hypothesis, that depending where a person may be at in the universe, gravity may control the velocity of time for a specific individual, so that if an astronaut is in planet X, where the gravity is five times stronger than planet Earth, time will slow down in Planet X for that particular astronaut, aging him/her at a slower rate; while simultaneously, time is running faster in planet Earth, where its inhabitants are aging at a faster rate), where the gravity is five times less than planet X: This hypothesis is just one example in how the imagination of variable paces are attributed to chronology concept. The fact that 10 people can experience the speed of time in ten different ways, in one room, and at one same momentum, substantiate that the speed of time is purely subjective, not objective; and therefore, justifies that the concept of time is actually without a single velocity, and with no acceleration whatsoever (i.e., time itself cannot change speeds in of itself, because time in of itself is without impetus; without power). Time itself does not move, nor can it move anything else within time; and therefore, cannot determine acceleration/deceleration in velocity. However, the people them-selves, who are mentally disposed with the concept of time, can determine the fast or slow motion within their own partisan time (e.g., if one is driving fast in a car because one is late to work, one can feel as though he/she is racing against the fast-paced time; and therefore, without really realizing it, it is the individual instead that determines the speed in one’s own partial time, and not time itself). So depending of what a chronological minded individual is experiencing, in connection with the animating speed that one is reflecting in, and with what’s happening in one’s own environment, it is the individual instead that capacitates one’s own partisan time with speed.

The velocity of actual accelerations and deceleration are solely determined by automaton impacts, or by intentional ignition of predetermined speed that’s needed: But all mental concepts in of themselves are really utterly without power: It is solely our physiological and physical dimensions that determine actual conditional speed, and not the unconditional concept of time-speed in of itself. Time in of itself can’t even stop itself, because time in of itself can’t even move itself to begin with. All in all, time (as a thing-in-itself) is not a force; and therefore, without thrusts and breaks: And anything that doesn’t have or isn’t made of an actual force, cannot and will not impact, or influence, any sort and degree of motion. All sorts of assessed concepts in of themselves, are motionless by themselves, until we assign them with determined speeds through the access of our physical dimensions. First, we assess the concepts before we assign them with impetus, through our physical access: All of course, in accordance to logic and reason; but most of all, in accordance of foreknowledge and wisdom.

Never ever assume that concepts in of themselves are capacitated with actual power (totally independent of physical accession) just because one can imagine them as such in their minds (e.g., imaginations of telekinesis: psychokinesis: telepathy: sixth sensory: third eye: etc.). Although very influential, the-Mind in of itself is powerless (without actual energy): it is then only through our physical access that we can attribute our mental concepts with actual power and speed. If it were true that mind power is actual (independent of physical accession), then it would not have been unseen to us at all, not even if it were invisible (because we would have then somehow sensed its structure of energy, and its intensity). But since our great minds are without literal objective power, they remain immaterial (unseen) to us. Indeed, even power can be invisible, but never immaterial. In other words, material can also be invisible: but material can never be immaterial.

Conceptual power does not make actual power.

Time-Odyssey

This kind of chronological navigation (e.g., time travel) provides a personified sentient experience that one is voyaging through a multi-dimensional time scheme (i.e., traveling with personal assigned events through one’s past, present and future: and possibly in reverse with a “time machine,” as many have imagined for). In chronological odyssey, an individual also senses and experiences that time is somehow set up to provide unique and distinct occurrences to particulates, suggesting that time-odyssey itself has, not so much preordained time, but that it somehow has intentionally developed particular voyages and settings to teach certain individuals a life lesson learned; or to obtain achievement(s) involving one-self, or with others as well: believing as though if time itself is capable of choosing specific and distinct journeys based on a much-needed gradual basis, individually or collectively. In this kind of fashion, one begins to personify time, hovering over one like a guardian angel. Some have even outwardly testified that “Time knows best.” Some have even gone to the extent of referring time as the universe itself, suggesting then that the universe is time sentient, capacitated with will and intent, in a timely fashion.

There are some scientists (if not all) suggesting that “time travel” is possible, but to a certain extent. For example, a well-known deceased theoretical physicist, by the name of Albert Einstein, who lived a lifespan from 1879 to 1955, developed the theory of general relativity(e.g., the theory that an acceleration is the same as its gravitational frame: in other words, firstly, that space and time are both actually different aspects of the same thing (space-time); and secondly, that space-time can be curved in various speeds depending on specific curves of a gravitational frame itself: but in addition to bending space-time itself, a frame of gravity can also bend light, radio waves, and all kinds of other substances or forces; but it cannot alter the speed of light itself), this very theory is one of the two pillars of modern physics. And then there is also Einstein’s developed theory of special relativity(e.g., the theory that the speed of light is constant in all referential frames: in other words, the things that move at the speed of light will always move at that same pace even if it seems different in comparison to one’s own frame of pace; so that no matter how fast or slow you’re moving, it’s always the same for the speed of light): this theory is very hard for many to conceive, because this one is in contrast to what timed individuals experience personally in their everyday lives. This theory, just like in general relativity, also suggests how certain specific things that occur in space-time, can even look different to certain people in each different specific places, or even moving at different speeds as well; except, for things that move in the speed of light.

From those two theoretical innovating seeds that Einstein has planted, there are now many great imaginative scientists suggesting that special relativity may indeed bring about surprises in regards to how you move through space-time; especially, when your speed is relative to other objects that is as close as to the speed of light: That a space object traveling close to the speed of light, with you relatively inside of it, time will actually go slower for you than for the people you leave behind: and that you won’t notice this effect until you return to those people left behind (e.g., say that you were 20 years old when you left planet Earth in a spaceship, and you’ve been traveling at about 99% of the speed of light—which is faster than anyone can achieve now—and celebrated only five birthdays during your space odyssey: When you get back home at the age of 25, you will find out that all of your friends and families, that were about your same age when you left, are now 70 years old, retired, and enjoying their grandchildren, if any. This possible surprising discovery can happen because time has passed more slowly for you in that very speedy acceleration, in which has caused you to experience only five years of your lifespan, while your classmates on Earth have experienced about almost 50 years of their lifespans. So the faster you move through space-time, the slower time is, and thus the slower you age: But the slower you move through space-time, the faster time is, and thus the faster you age). So, if your space odyssey began today in nearly the speed of light, in the year of 2016, it would then only take you just 5 years to travel to the year of 2066; but as for your friends and families, it would instead take them 50 years to get to 2066: Thus, in a sense, this means that you have been journeying through space-time in “time travel” framework, and not so much in actual “space travel.”

Be that as it may, in regards to Einstein’s general relativity, the difference in this time travel theory can also occur for objects and not just for people, to either move or deteriorate at decreased speeds in relative to space, depending upon specific frames of gravity, that is. This is what then determines that the passing speed of time itself is retarded by objects with their gravitational field frames, then for other objects that are afar from such intense gravity frames. So, for example, that means that time travel near a very intensified gravitational field, of an empirical black hole, would pass at a very slow-paced in contrast to the time travel near the less intensified gravitational field of our Earth: Hence, in accordant to Einstein’s both relativity theories, all kinds of other space and time distortions near various gravitational fields do differentiate after all with time travel, so that the intensity of a gravity itself is what then instead determines the speed in time traveling, and not so much time itself.

Other highly imaginative scientists suggest that there could also be unknown distortions occurring and reoccurring in space-time, and that because of such possible existing phenomenon, it can give them the possibility to think of ways a time machine could work for us through such possible unknown conditional deformities. Some of those ingenious scientists are inclined to the idea of “worm holes,” which they suggest that those holes may provide shortcuts through space-time, and thus shortened time travel immensely. This (and other ideas alike) are fantastical and wonderfully interesting for many: But those very self-encouraging scientists, along with their admirers too, don’t know at this point whether they (the wormholes) are possibly real as objects. Nevertheless, these assisting scientists are still exclaiming that those idealistic suppositions are based on good and solid science. However, according to some realist scientists, a supposedly real-time traveler, that may be traveling in accordance to what is real-time travel, in real science, exclaim that there is no way such a traveler can go back into time, at least not back to a point before a time machine was ever built. These realist scientists, in real science, are then fully confident that time travel is solely possible into the future, at least at the starting point in whereas a time machine fully began. That, however, would require a development of very advanced sophisticated technology to acquire such a defeat; and of course, also with a complex requirement that works very surprisingly well from a very paradox computation.

If real science is to achieve such a defeat, according to some of those realist scientists them-selves, time minded individuals could then travel 10,000 years into the future and age only by one year during such a journey; that is, through space-time shortcuts. However, in a realistic view and sound logic, such a trip would consume an extraordinaire and immense amount of energy, not to mention the enormity of energy needed just to start the thrust. Further, time travel to the past would be way more difficult even if a time traveler could travel back where a time machine first began; only because, this kind of reversed time traveling method is not at all yet understood as a real science. All in all, scientists and engineers who just plan to operate some ordinary regular space missions, must do account for the time distortions that occur because of both Einstein’s general and special relativity theories. Even though these scientific relativity effects are far too small to matter in most everyday human affairs, it is, however, very imperative for many scientists to know them anyway: Because for one thing, these effects that help them conceive those very tiny fractions of a second, is of utmost importance to make a spaceship run precisely, and that’s just to make it run well inside our solar system (so just imagine what it would take to make a spaceship run precisely outside of our solar system). Hence, it can be understood as to why some exceptional time minded scientists, along with their admirers, truly appreciate Einstein’s theories very much.

As amazing as time-traveling may read and sound, we should grasp the reality that time itself is still just a state of full and utter apperception, so that we can still take a strong grasp on actualities when such fantastical time traveling theories are discussed and suggested. In regards to epitomized assigned events in time-odyssey, it must be remembered that time in of itself is not a substance of force and intelligence that acts, codes, orders, charges, measures and causes all creations to come forth with meaning and purpose. And it must be noticed that even though the nurturing concept of time can only be learned in the-Mind from external sources, it does not mean, however, that such an understanding and disposition is a distinct capacity for all minds. Time is then learnt; not innately instinctive.

Time-Elderly

This kind of time aging (e.g., temporal lifetime) provides a mental actuation that time itself is somehow responsible in determining, not just the aging process, but also the pace of deterioration for all created powers, objects and life (that is, for powers, things and life with a beginning). This is evident by the fact that many chronological minded individuals celebrate birthdays, keeping up with milestones that supposedly time itself provides for them, to help birthday individuals contemplate in what they have achieved up to that milestone, thus far: Also, it is evident by the use of several popular global time-phrases; such as, the new millennium, that old generation, this era of freedom, a century of a lifetime, and, an eon ago. And then there is the dating period method of days, weeks, months and years that many people feel that their lifetime of age process is determined by. With such a chronological outline being so globally permeated as a truth, it is to no wonder why anyone who is chronologically sentient can think, feel and experience the concept of time as a literal reality; in which for them, time itself determines both the speed and the age process of bio-deterioration (this is very evident as described in the Odyssey Time paragraph of this article, when referring to the speed of aging in time traveling in relation to both living and non-living objects).

Commercial industries take advantage and add to the illusion when selling products that can turn back the hands of time (e.g., selling “secret” beauty products that can reverse time to rid of wrinkles): You even have merchandising markets taking the opportunity of introducing new clothing styles, by referring the old ones as outdated, or, out-of-date. Even objects are referred as time-aging when they’re described as antiques, relics, and/or archaic: Entertainment and music too are referred with time-aging (e.g., the 70’s was the global decade of disco genre).

So it seems that the global collective chrono-consciousness understands that time itself contributes to the tempo of aging process; that both age and time is understood and actuated as such. But the actuality of time contributing and assisting with the deterioration of all creations is just a figurative study; a metaphorical perception; turned into a specified dual contiguity, imminently: that according to Einstein’s relativity theories, it is a dual that is one in the same with space. Even in modern cosmology, it is suggested that time itself has a beginning as well: that time itself was created by the pragmatics of the big bang—with an essential element of space; suggesting also then that space itself was created.

Realizing that time itself is nothing more but a mental idea, the matter of the fact is, we all age with or without time: Time does not contribute to the speed and measures of aging (for if somehow it were possible that one can subtract time from his/her own mind, one would still deteriorate at the same pace; no different). The speed of aging really depends upon a clean organic chemically free diet, an unpolluted atmosphere, and filtered clean hydration liquids: The more we pollute our atmospheres and our consumption of foods and waters, the faster our coming generations will, not just deteriorate faster in aging, but quickly degenerate in generation as well (and that, my reader, time itself does not determine). Time does not aid to anything or anyone either; it is the people them-selves that figuratively personify time with the capacity to contribute and assist in every existing creation, with both life and objects, and with every alpha and omega. In all reality, it has always been and still is timeless: Because when the end of time should ever arrive in our concepts and sentience, nothing else will end with that concept except for the concept itself: and everything else will remain coming and going, even after the end of time.

Time-Destiny

This kind of preordained or foreordained chronological state of mind (e.g., fate), enables one to understand that life and all creations are precondition for explicit circumstances and consequences—without coincidences and accidental impacts of events, occurrences and the happenings: and that every single thing that happens, happens for a reason. This is very evident by an enormous amount of people who have the figurative faith in seeking omens, seers, mediums and fortune tellers.

In seeking a gifted clairvoyant, many prefer to believe in a preordained reading, with the hope in finding out what they can do now to better their future if needed, by applying enforced changes against fate: On the other hand, others prefer to believe in a foreordained reading, with the hope in finding out the meaning of their past and present by finding out their fate for the future; in this way, they can make sense of things now, and not necessarily enforced changes for their futures, but to just simply understand what must be, or what is meant to be. But the paradox in any oracle reading, if it were true, is that one is supposedly already be preordained to seek a seer to enforce preordained changes; in this way, the one who is seeking a fortune-teller is only led to believe that such a seeker is in control of such pursue and investigation; when in fact, it is really fate itself that has a seeker believing that one is willfully enforcing changes against destiny itself. In this way, fate assures that one cannot and will not override fate itself; and therefore, fate then remains fateful to itself.

Many people would suggest that the word destiny comes from a fable Latin goddess of ancient Rome, named Moira; later then, named as Destiny: However, that is false: There is no prove of such female deity except for the name itself: not even the mythological Greek goddess Aisa/Asia (that seems it was purposely confused with the name Moira) comes close to being attributed to preordained, or foreordained time. The fact remains that the etymology of the word destiny is really of the Latin word destine(way before Rome), that has no connotation with a mythological fateful entity whatsoever, and it simply means, “to make firm/to establish firmly.” So what really connoted the word destine with destiny?

In Greek mythology, there were these three fable titan sisters that went by the group name, “The Fates:” then later, they were termed as, “The Destinies:” and they were known to be contributors in assisting with preconditioning time, events and occurrences. Their names were Klotho, Lachesis and Atropos. Klotho was known to have spun the thread of life (time); Lachesis was known to have determined the length of the thread; and Atropos was known to have cut the thread when the proper time has come for death. Atropos was known to be the smallest of the three, but she was the eldest and superior to her sisters; that is why her name “Atropos” was fitting, because it means, “She who cannot be turned;” and thus fate begat, and destiny arose as a collective social consciousness.

It seems that if it were true, that the origins of fate and destiny had stemmed from mythological inception, it would then be even more obvious that the mystical aesthetic skills of clairvoyance, premonition, omen and fortune-telling would be even more so superstitious; because the only thing that fable can beget is fable itself: Hence, if the mythical source were true, it would not have made destiny any truer, except in becoming more fictitious, if anything else. Many individuals will take offense to this paragraph’s summation concerning time and destiny (some individuals are quite comfortable with believing in preordained and foreordained futures and pasts): Some will even argue that if fate and destiny were not literal, what then could explain and account for the 100% accurate fulfillment of the biblical divine prophesies? That if time in of itself was not real, why then did the biblical God has prophesied through ‘His’ prophets, concerning fate, destiny and time? The answer to these questions will be logically justified in the next Time-Prophecy paragraph.

Time-Prophecy

This kind of prognosticated state of mind (foreknowing outcomes for a time frame period, based on current knowledge and wisdom: not necessarily experience) is easily mystified with preordained/foreordained time concerning fate and destiny; hence, the reason a prophecy is considered to be one with premonition, omen, fortune-telling, clairvoyance and astrology. But prognosticating an outcome of a situation, in a time frame, is really not one in the same with predicting the future itself. When a prophet prophesizes a prophecy, the prophet does not speak of his own words (or of his own clairvoyant skills), but entirely that of his God’s sayings: which by means, the prophecy is then based solely on God’s prognosis. In other words, a prophet’s God will prognosticate an outcome in the future based on present conditions and situations, as well as signs (e.g., the same with our medical doctors, having the foreknowledge of what will happen to a drunkard in the future if one presently keeps on drinking addictively: In this situation, the doctor is not a fortune-teller who is predicting future events for the drunkard; instead, he’s a professional medical physician with the foreknowledge of what happens to addictive drunkards if they don’t stop getting drunk—it’s then pretty much the same when God all foreknew what will happen to mankind based on the current conditions of Adam’s sin, then). The biblical God is known to be all knowing, but also allforeknowing, of what will happen to mankind’s outcome within a time frame, based on their current courses, conditions and situations: e.g., when either Thomas Edison, Joseph Swan, or Hiram Maxim created the first incandescent light bulb (whoever may have been the creator of it), neither of them had any idea at first that just one of those light bulb will consume about 714 pounds of coal per year. At first, such an invention may have seem like one of the greatest idea ever, but withoutforeknowing about our environmental issues with our gaseous nature, in regards to the billions of light bulbs now lit per year, and cars running, airplanes flying, factories burning carbon into the air through their chimneys, and thousands of other venting carbon gadgets and places emitting soot into our natural atmosphere, is the cause of the greenhouse effect (or global warming) in our earth—unbalancing the elements of nature; and therefore, causing great natural catastrophes because the earth is only trying to cool itself back to normal: If such great inventors would have had the foreknowledge of what would happen to nature in the long run, due to their inventions, they would’ve found other safe measures to invent their creations. It’s to no wonder that the biblical prophets were able to prognosticate natural catastrophes in the future with 100% accuracy; especially, at the time frame when the end of this wicked world is nigh. The God of the bible, with this particular prophecy of increased natural disasters, was then able to prognosticate the outcomes with a certain generation (the generation that would finally reap what their long ago inventors sewed—this would be the particulate generation that determines the time frame of reaping the outcomes, and not time itself: Just like a doctor that can prognosticate a particular time frame for a drunkard to start experiencing organ deterioration). And because of God’s divine capacity of allforeknowing everything and everyone that exists, the biblical God was also able to prognosticate when the outcomes of human behaviors would increase with greed, extreme egoism, rebellion, disobedience, crime, haughtiness, betrayal, etc.: And even an increase of war one after another (Matthew 24:8, 3, 7;Luke 21:10, 11;2ndTimothy 3:1-5). This biblical God even allforeknew that mankind is not created to direct his own steps successfully, not without ‘His’ divine guidance (Jeremiah 10:23): Therefore, it was clearly allforeknown by God that mankind could never be successful in regulating themselves without ‘His’ divine rulership: that it was all along a vain attempt for mankind to be independent of God’s accurate knowledge and rule (but that it had to necessarily be done, so that man and all the angels can see for themselves the outcomes of man, instead of just being told and take God’s words for it): Hence the reason, that the bible’s prophecies are all accurate. Therefore, prophets prognosticate outcomes based solely on divine foreknowledge of all things and all people. Nevertheless, some may still to differ and suggest that this resolution of mine doesn’t explain the specific personal details of certain prophecies (e.g., prophetic names that are foretold for certain specific persons not yet existing: or the prophetic distinct details as to what has occurred during Jesus’ death sentenced on a stake; or to some, on his crucifix: Down to the very last detail).

Before those disputes are taken into account, we need to first know the root of the word itself. The etymology of the word prophecy, with a ‘c,’ not with an ‘s,’ comes from the Latin word, prophetia, which means the “gift of interpreting the will of the gods.” It must be understood that this meaning was adopted when the people (the-Israel) of God began to associate themselves with foreigners (along with their foreign gods), and mixed themselves in the foreign worship of idolatry. The foreigners then began to become acquainted with the Hebrew concept of “navi” (in Arabic, the spelling is “nabi”), a word spelled out as “prophet” in translation, not in interpretation: in which, it takes a different meaning than that of the Latin source (which is, by the way, the true origin of its root).

The Hebrew word ‘navi’ literally means, “fruit of the lips.” This is crucial, because it means that whatever words and sayings are coming out of the lips of a ‘navi’ (a prophet) of God, it will become “fruitful” (in fruition); in other words, it will happen in accordance to God’s truths and righteousness. This kind of prophecy intentionally stresses out something more in particular than just being allforeknowing: It stresses out that the will of the biblical God is above any other will in the earth, as well as in the heavens above: In other words, no matter what man may intent to do in their future’s plans, the God of the bible will supersede their plans if ‘He’ has to, to demonstrate that whatever that God says ‘He’ will do, ‘His’ words will not return to ‘Him’ without results): Thus demonstrating that in the end, it will be the biblical God’s will that will triumph: even above powerful manipulating satanic and demonic will.

In this fashion of prophesying, with the combination of being AllForeknowing and AllPowerful, the God of the bible is able to cause its prophets to prognosticate 100% accurate with the outcomes of man in their future—So accurate that this God knows in advance of how certain people will react to certain specific situations: and will also make sure that nothing will interrupt those certain details; neither by man, nor by satanic and demonic interferences if it’s part of ‘His’ prophesies. This God will even divinely intervene with naming certain specific individuals, that’s in accordance to the prophecies that were mentioned long ago (and it’s not that this God is manipulating situations with naming specific individuals, but only demonstrating that ‘He’ itself is in control of his own words). And because this God has the allforeknowing of our DNA structures, ‘He’ himself is able to prognosticate way in advance of how certain individuals will be, will become, will do, will say, will behave and will respond to general impacts and influences in the future (down to the very finest detail).

Being therefore AllForeknowing, as opposed to our current genuine professionals just being foreknowing, this God is able to give way better advancedprognosis than any of our today’s professional doctors, physicians, psychoanalysts, politicians, scientists, physicists, astrologers, astronomers, philosophers and socialists—no matter how far an outcome may be within a time framework, ‘His’ prognosis will never miss. As you can see, this is not at all foretelling the future, as is the case with the foreign gods when applying the Latin word prophetia: This is simply prognosticating man’s outcomes as the result of their deeds, in a prognosis time framework(s). In certain prophesies that were prophesied through the chosen biblical Hebrew nevi’im (prophets), God was, and still is, not foretelling the future—God is making the future instead. And that, my dear reader, is not divination.

If prophesies were one in the same with foretelling futures, destinies and fates (as is the case with fortune tellers, omens, seers and astrologers), that would then only demonstrate that the God of the bible is not in control, but that time instead is. And eventually, that God would then be found guilty of divination: the very thing ‘He’ warns against, and hates against as well. Foretelling the future (divination) of any kind, is still a divine felony against those who are guilty of practicing such a thing; and therefore, punishable by death upon the day of God’s fury (Deuteronomy 18:10; Leviticus 20:27): Further, any biblical prophecy that is being termed, applied and practiced as one in the same as divination, is not supported as such from the biblical God (Jeremiah 14:14). Hence, God does not read the future, because there is no actual literal future to read, except in the-Mind. Perhaps this is just one of the reasons as to why any form of divination, through the practice of all kinds of mediums available, is such a felony against God; because since time itself is not a literal manifestation as a cosmological force and law, it is all then a big lie if it’s foretold as such.

Time-Eternity

This kind of “everlasting time” endurance is a very confusing impression (many even confuse this idea that something, or someone, can possibly be everlasting in of itself). As mentioned in the Time-Contiguity paragraph above, the only thing that is everlasting-time is time itself. But why is that?

If time were a literal invisible cosmological energy, everything then within time begins and ends except for time in of itself, because that is how time itself is determined by those very existing transient cycles (e.g., without a beginning, time would not be time itself: and everything that begins within time must also end within time, or time would still not be time itself: When something and someone is timed, as a thing-in-itself, that something and someone is transient their making; if not, then that something and someone is not of time origin): Hence, the only thing that determines what time itself is, is the dual cycle conditions of the alpha and the omega passages (visibly and invisibly).

If you’re a product of a beginning, then you’re a product of time; and therefore, you must end in time because you are conditioned to begin and end (which is all part of the cycle of everlasting time). So no one, absolutely no one, and nothing either, can be “everlasting time” in of itself. To make it simpler, anyone or anything that is a product of a creation (a beginning), you or the thing created cannot and will not be everlasting time in of itself, because you and the thing created are timed in existence (i.e., you simply cannot be everlasting time in of your-self, when it is within time itself that you’re conditioned as a timely/briefly duration). Everything then will continue to everlastingly come and go briefly, as usual in “everlasting time.” But some people prefer to differ and dispute, “If indeed it is true that only time itself can be everlasting time, how do you then recall the biblical God when referring ‘Himself’ existing as everlasting time; and as to times and times indefinite?”

The reason for the confusion in biblical divine timing, is because the one that refers itself as time-everlasting, is really Jesus; and not his Father, God Almighty. In the bible, Jesus conditions himself as the alpha and the omega when referring his return to the earth (Revelation 22:13): and God Almighty conditions ‘Himself’ as the One who is without a beginning and an ending; and therefore, ‘He’ would then be the One to preserve Jesus as priest of all everlasting times (Hebrews 7:3). The confusion stems from the religious faith of the Holy Trinity; in whereas God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are but one: And therefore conditioning the Creator, who is always conditioned as the One without a beginning and an ending, to also simultaneously be conditioned as the One with a beginning and the ending: hence, mystifying (confusing) and making the God of the bible as complex: therefore, becoming a mystery that works in mysterious ways. Whatever beliefs people may hold, and no matter how genuine their faiths may be in all their heartfelt honesty and sincerity, something that has always been conditioned without a beginning cannot be conditioned to begin; and something that has always been conditioned without an ending cannot be conditioned to end (i.e., if you have no beginning, you simply cannot end). It is either one or the other; unless, one conditions the biblical God into a mystery formation, because only within such a confusing faith, can this kind of belief be accepted—without it really ever being grasped within logic and reason. This is the only way the Holy Trinity can be relished—there is no other way.

To finally now make things clear, because the biblical God is conditioned without a beginning and an ending, God itself is then an everlasting existence, and not an everlasting time. The reason then that the biblical Jesus conditions himself as everlasting time, is because his Father (Jehovah: Yahowah: Yahweh) can preserve him as such through God’s condition of everlasting existence. So if anything or anyone is to survive or exist as everlastingly in everlasting-time, a timeless power (a condition that’s beyond time condition) is needed in order to preserve anyone or anything forever in time. Therefore, everlasting time is not one in the same as everlasting existence: they’re both very distinct; very different from each other (like the differences between light and darkness). Hence, Jesus is conditioned as everlasting-time, with and through the sustenance condition of everlasting-existence of his Father, God Almighty.

Indeed, and again, the only thing that’s everlasting-time is time itself: that is, if time itself was an actual cosmological force. But within all reason and wisdom, in order to explain transient existences in relation to everybody and everything that exist as such, time is a great concept for many minded chronological persons.

Time-Divinity

This kind of godlike timing can also be complicated to grasp. In accordance to a biblical account in 2nd Peter 3:8, it indicates, “…But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day…” (New International Version Bible). In other words, a day of the biblical Lord is equal to a thousand years in man’s time; but of course, that does depend upon which Lord that scriptural passage is referring to. When Adam and Eve were forewarned not to eat of the forbidden fruit, they were told that if they did, they would surely die on that day. Eventually, they did eat of the forbidden fruit, from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad; however, they did not die on that day(man’s day). Instead, Adam died at the age of 930 years old (Genesis 5:5); in other words, Adam did die on that day that God said he would die (in God’s one day), that is. So before Adam almost completed a total existence of 1,000 years, he died just 70 years short of one day of God: So he did die in that day he ate of the forbidden fruit: and thus, God kept true to ‘His’ words, after all. But how can a God without a beginning and an end, who is then utterly devoid of time in ‘His’ personal existence, have a time-table if ‘He’ is beyond time itself?

In the biblical passage of Genesis 1:26, it indicates, “…Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…’” (New International Version). Notice that this passage indicates, that other than God itself, someone else was creating with ‘Him’ by using words like “us” once, and “our” twice. In the Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls(where the translation of the Old Testament originally comes from), the passage for the word “us” in Genesis 1:26 uses the term elohim, which is plural for gods. With that in mind, in the scriptural passage of John 3:16, it indicates, “…For God so loved the world, that He gave His onlybegotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life…” (New American Standard Bible). According to the Greek Septuagint (where the translation of the New Testament originally comes from), the term “only begotten” indicates the concept of something that is “one and only,” or, “unique;” like no other. Therefore, in the condition that Jesus is the only-begotten creation of all creations, is an indication that his creation is “without equal;” and therefore, created solely by God itself. That means, that every other creation that began on after the first creation of the “only begotten,” were then simply always created by “us” (elohim)—both by God itself and the god, Jesus—Michael then: together).

No matter how All Knowing and All Foreknowing the God of the bible is, ‘He’ will never personally understand what is like to be and experience a beginning (i.e., of just simply being a creature). So this God had to create something almost similar of ‘Himself,’ a god with a beginning(two beginnings if you also count the life of Jesus on earth), in order to continue further creations together; so that the God without beginning and end can be accompanied with a god of beginning, in whom eventually then became also a god of end when his life ended in the earth as Jesus. Hence, that is why Jesus conditions himself as, “…the Alpha and the Omega…” (Jesus is the only alpha god, because he is the first creation before all the other creations begat; and he is the only omega god, because he’s the solegod that was resurrected back into existence from his death, by the very biblical God itself—Acts 2:32: So that Jesus is then the first and only god to have triumphed death—and any other god will just simply remain dead; e.g., since Satan is biblically known to be a cherub—an actual and literal lesser god—he, as a lesser god, will not be resurrected back to life after his termination by God; nor will his demons, also: nor any other angels as well: Hence, Jesus is then the only omega god; fittingly and justly). This veryfirst-born creation had to be created as a god, so that through this god, God itself can then justly deal with creations and creatures (beginners) through the personal understanding and experience of the god with a beginning: side by side, together. If a god with a beginning was not first created before all the other creations were made, the biblical God itself would not have been a fair judge to us all, because we would not have had someone of great power (that’s similar to God in godlike powers) to always intercede for us as creatures; by someone who knows and personally experiences what is like to be created and be a creature in one’s own making, sentience and existence itself. Without that first only-begotten creation, God itself would then unjustly had to deal with us directly (i.e., without an advocate-creature speaking in behalf of all creatures, it would have been unjust to us all if God, who can never personally experience ‘Himself’ as a creature, had to deal directly with us in a sole manner): for that, my reader, would have been biased (one-sided) in administering with us, personally.

It is then obvious, as indicated in 2nd Peter 3:8, that a day of God is but a thousand years to man, is only possibly known and determined through the only-begotten creation. In other words, God itself, for the first time ever, was then able to obtain days for ‘Himself’ through ‘His’ only begotten son, Jesus: and that, my reader, is how the concept of time began: for before the creation of the only-begotten took place, the concept of time was unbeknownst to God itself, at least as an outside observer. Hence, that is why the only-begotten creation is unique, because it is the first and only creation that has ever introduced the concept of time, for the first time.

The biblical fact remains, that since even God itself has learned a time-table through ‘His’ only-begotten god (son) creation, is proof enough that their time is utterly different from ours; therefore, proving that time itself is just a mental state of mind, in relation to the environments and surroundings one encounters with. Therefore, time itself is not literal, nor objective: it is simply a concept used to reflect, connect, explain and understand transient creations, in transient sentience.

A One-Way (or No-Way) Highway

Almost everyone seems to be under the impression that somehow, time itself can be reversed. This illusion stems from the time-contiguity mental experience: where many who experiences the mental concept of a past, senses that many are somehow going back into time, or going back and forth in time: Hence, the reason that most people would say, “If you want to be successful your future, you need to stop going back into your past,” or, “If you keep looking back into your past, you’re going to get stuck in there.” These kinds of figurative expressions add to the illusion that time is somehow a two-way highway; when in fact, it’s really only a one-way highway. The going back and forth in time is really an oddity, as explained in the “Time-Oddity,” and in the “Time-Contiguity” paragraphs above. The going forwards and backwards into time is an internal intimate peculiarity that’s mentally experienced only by its beholder; but yet, still collectively understood when discussed and shared with others.

In reality, and again, if time were objective and concrete, the only two things that determine time itself is the dual conditional cycles of the “alpha” and the “omega” themselves. No end can begin; but only begin can end. The idea that one can literally time travel back and forth in time, is evident that time is after all an illusion: Because if the past is always existing in its past, for a time traveler to then be able to arrive in the past; and the future is always existing in its future, for a time traveler to then able to arrive in the future; then nothing really begins, nor ends.

You simply can’t simultaneously exist now; and continue to exist in the past before, during and after your existence; to then continue to exist in the future before and after your death. The more people are moving on into their future, eventually, the more the past too moves on along without your past (indeed, pasts do die too). You either begin, or you just don’t exist at all: But if you begin, you do exist briefly.

Since everything can only begin in time, nothing, absolutely nothing can end before beginning: Everything in time goes one way only—it begins—and then it ends; perpetually, in everlasting-time. Anything or anyone will never, never end to then begin again automatically; in other words, time cannot be reversed in any form or fashion (e.g., in time travel), for that wouldn’t be time at all; that would be something beyond it; something else; something, transcendent (unconditional).

Time can never be reversed or time itself would not be time. The only way that something or someone can be undone, as a product of temporal condition, is to end it (but never in the reverse order that it begun); for there can be no reversed course of action in something that ended—or it didn’t end at all.

If by any means one’s own faith of choice is accurate and true, and one returns even after his/her own death in that faith, something then timeless (something beyond time) had to do that for him/her to make one without time from one’s own origin of time. With this in mind, the transcendental (unconditional) belief of the immortality of the soul, that supposedly departs automatically after one’s own death (end), ceases to exist—because if it were so, that would then mean that one is not actually an origin of time (a beginning), and that one’s own form of creation—as a creature—is then all an illusion. You’re either a creation, or not: You either began or didn’t: You’re either timed, or not? Which is it? Because you cannot and will not be both, simultaneously. Either one is conditioned distinctively, as complete utter opposites; without any medium grounds for them.

In Time Summation

Time, indeed and thought, is solely a concept. And although time can only be learnt as a distinct capacity of the-Mind from external sources, it only means that it can be distinctively grasped in the mind, and not that time itself is a distinct inborn capacity of the-Mind. It is important to take note that time is an apprehension learned as a nurturing concept: it has to be introduced in an upbringing manner, or it cannot be understood as an object when time itself is ambiguous in its idealistic existence. Without the gradual proper time nurturing, an intimate development towards it will not be possible; therefore, in order for time to personally be grasped, it must be inculcated biasedly, before one is then thrust out into the big ambiguous pot of time. Time is then not a predisposition that one is born with.

The concept of time itself even has a beginning, it wasn’t always there; for if it were, time wouldn’t be time itself. So how is it then that time can have a beginning without an ending, and everything else that has a beginning must have an ending…why is then time the exception?

If time indeed was a cosmic law that governs all the transient creations, it itself would have to be the exception of the rule to be the only thing that would have a beginning without an end: Because if it didn’t, then nothing could perpetually birth and die for ever if time itself would die, for the end of time would then be the end of all beginnings and endings. Time itself is then the first and only beginning without death: it has to be, or every new dual cycles of the alpha and the omega can’t continue forever.

Like this:

The most popular integral-realm description (finite or infinite) that most people use to describe all the celestial bodies there in, is called the universe: a description that most adopted since the 1580’s, to sort of encompass all variable cosmos into an integrated system (embodying the cosmos into a “whole world:” pretty much like our whole world in the Earth). This analysis reflects the very nature of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”); the same as the whole integrated structure of “individualism.” But what if what’s out there is not so universal (whole) after all? Or, on the contrary, if what is out there is universal, what exactly then is the nature or thing that is universal?

It was easy to adopt the concept of the word universe, simply because the concept of the word “cosmos” (which indicates many, but as quantitatively indeterminate) indicate the idea as in preparing to dispose; in other words, “to organize.” The etymology of the word cosmos stem from the Latinized form of Greek, kosmos (which means, to order and arrange), which indeed could be a quasi-definition. Concepts that are connoted to words like cosmos and universe (e.g., world, order, whole, organization, harmony, etc.) can confuse, not so much whether things are whole or ordered, but the very nature and thing of what exactly is arranged, is what should concern us (even it means to look outside of the language and fashion of The-Self); in other words, outside of your-self.

We can see with our own eyes that the cosmos are somehow arranged; there’s no argument against that. And we see many radiating luminaries (stars), various explorers (planets) – along with their neighboring satellites (moons); as well as the asteroids, comets, various belts, galaxies, nebulae, cosmic-debris, and a “host” (army) of other cosmological manifestations. And when one, who is mentally actuated with the concept of individuality, suggests a scheme description for the cosmos (and is not careful to look outside of one-self), one can start to self-reflect with it in the same like manner and scheme of “individualism” (as an integral system that’s harmonized and congruent as a, “whole”), and thus entitle the whole realm of the various arranged cosmos as the, “universe.” The matter of the fact is that when one looks at the cosmos from outside of one-self, one can start to see that the cosmos themselves are not so universal at all; in other words, they’re not whole, harmonized and congruent.

Some people look at the universe as an amicable force: Even more so, as a figurative loving entity that is somehow consciously disembodied as a whole—throughout the entire universe. But the “Universe” is more than harmonized: In contrast to our existences in the planet earth, the universe is actually somewhat chaotic, dangerous, mixed-up, and full of forces that would immediately destroy us in less than a blink of an eye; or even worse, destroy us in the speed of light; and nothing is faster than the speed of light. We have celestial bodies like Jovian planets (e.g., Jupiter, Saturn, etc.) that if our planets were to even get close to them, even from a very large distance from them, we would be destroyed immediately, and our planet would be become desolate like the moons of Jupiter.

Every moon, planet, meteor, solar system, galaxy and nebulae (other than our own planet) seem destructive, unable to harness and inhabit life as we are and see it. If anything, surrendering ourselves to the mercy of the universe would be utterly merciless. But here we are, in this itty-bitty little tiny spec of space in the enormity of the merciless universe, and we still go on existing. To make matters even worse, our planet earth demands to be stationed in an entire solar system in order for it to exist itself: and it just happens to be that our entire solar system is just right to sustain our itty-bitty little planet of ours with life (from the center of the sun to the very edge of the outer asteroid-belt; and every single thing in between, is of the utmost essential and exact specifics for our existence). But wait! As if that’s not enough! Our entire solar system must be stationed in a specific area of an entire galaxy, in order for it itself to exist; because if we were not at all stationed at an exact area of the Milky Way, our entire solar system would either go way too far outside of the galaxy if stationed to close to the edge, and ceases to exist: Or go way too in where stars are enormously variable and clustered, and the amount of their collective radiation is so immense that our solar system will cease to exist. So now, we’re this itty-bitty little tiny spec of space (that’s barely visible in the entire universe), that demands the entire Milk-Way Galaxy to sustain our existence. That’s a lot of enormous and gargantuan resources and power to ask for, in order to just sustain an itty-bitty little tiny spec of dust to keep us alive in it; and yet, that is what must be done, or we won’t exist at all.

Universe (the Pseudo-God)

In reality, the cosmos are indeed organized; but, they’re actually chaotically organized, set at bay within their own various encompassed constructs (contained and restrained within their own pressurized and gravitational pulls; in this way, order is established between the, spaces); and therefore, unable to harness any sort of life. And yet we…We are this tiny spec of dust disturbing the perfect chaotic harmonious-scheme of the cosmos: and we dare to dub them all as, “the universe:” A definite misnomer. We are actually the anomaly of the cosmos (the abnormality that’s disturbing the normality of the cosmos’ tumult harmony): And we yet dare to demand this Gargantuan Pandemonium band to give us its colossal extensive power and resources, in ‘order’ to just sustain our existence in a barely seen spec of dust.

If the universe was actually a conscious disembodied entity (as many believe it is), IT would look at us, and say instead, “How dare they disturb my beautiful and perfect discordant symphony!…They’re asking far too much of my resources for something I can barely see!…Destroy them!!…(Oh what world; what world!”).

Surely, it is definitely not the cosmos’ band that’s responsible for us to be alive. If it were, we wouldn’t even be here to begin with. With this in mind, do you now dare hear what the-Universe has to say? Would you dare now trust that the-Universe will guide you, and protect you, and help you out with all of your dilemmas; and with your fate as well? If you are one of the many that believes that the-Universe is harmonious and loving, you are then fully disarray. Surely, all that which is above, is not the same as all that which is below: And all that which is below, is not the same as all that which is above: If you know these names, you would now know that Crowley, Regardie and Levi, along with the Baphomet, had all erroneously mistaken the-Universe as the “Golden Dawn.”

Hence, symbolically speaking, the microcosm is not one in the same with the macrocosm; it is actually the tiny anomaly of the great conformity.

Like this:

It was during the third grade in P.S. 6 West Farms, in the Bronx of New York, where my younger soul (animating physical body) was in the middle of an art class assignment: The class was asked to use three shades of the same color (mine was brown, for whatever reason it was), and mix them on a big wide thick sheet of paper, and just move our hands over it in a swirling manner. We were dressed in entire white plastic aprons with arm coverings too, and getting our hands dirty with the paint (it wasn’t lead based paint, and it was very easy to wash with soap and water, according to what the teacher said). As we swirl our hands on the paper, we were to try to make out something out of the whole mess. The teacher, surname in this article as Mrs. Schrieffer (matured looking, and a bit heavy in weight), told us that the assignment was to help us discover our aesthetic capacities (she used the term creative instead). As my hands were mixing and spreading the paints on the paper, before my being knew what was going to happen, all of a sudden my mind went a blank (became mindless/unaware). And my guess as to whatever happened to my brain afterwards, is that it kept on functioning, something similar to the brains of the animal species, that functions as a mindless brain (without awareness). Perhaps my brain continued to automatically simulate a seemingly aware person, animating my ‘body’ as an actual zombie state of mind (not, however, like the zombies of Hollywood science fiction films). The consciousness (the part that instinctively produces and actuates automaton thoughts in the cerebral organ) remained capacitated, but the sentient aspect (the-Mind) of awareness was in a mental state of slumber (like a mental sleepy death state). Since my mind was mindless during a very long extended span (years in Gregorian time), my being has no other rational and logical explanation of what may have occurred afterwards since my mother and siblings did informed that my body kept on going as usual (no coma whatsoever), and that they didn’t notice a thing; except, that my ‘body’ kept on making endless repetitive choices: Going in circles, depending on what the external social settings were (i.e., if my zombie state body would hangout with Catholics, it would become a Catholic: and if a week later, it hanged out with Jehovah’s Witnesses, it would immediately abandon Catholicism and study to become a Jehovah’s Witness: and if two weeks later, it hung out with worshipers of the Latin Santeria occult, it would immediately abandon Jehovah’s Witness’s studies and become a sorcerer, that use to help, guide and aid people with tarot cards, crystals, tea leaves and coffee residue readings; and, with the casting of spells; etc., etc., etc.: Without end; in full repetitive spiral circles).

However my brain may have continued in the absence of my awareness, all that my being knows is that when my soul has reached the age of forty, my mind began to become aware again, gradually: and before IT knew it, there was my sentience again, resurrected from a mental sleeping death, and my whole insides felt as though it was somehow rising up, endlessly. And when mine eyes finally looked at the mirror, my mind noticed that my face got older, that my soul was bigger, and my hands aged: and my mind couldn’t immediately handle the animation of my soul well: It took a while before the animating capacities of my hands, fingers, feet, toes, legs, arms, and everything else, would’ve been fully controlled by the volition distinct capacity of my mind: it was as though learning how to control my physical animating soul anew: And everything in the strange apartment that my mind was resurrected in, was simultaneously all on (like the lights, the TV, and the lit candles that seemed dedicated to a life-sized statue of a Saint Barbara, and to a host of other small statues and pictures of Egyptian, Greece and Roman gods: And the computer and monitor too were fully on, with the name “Sabiazoth” written in the middle of the desktop wallpaper; and it had the eye of Horus/Osiris above that name as well, emanating seemingly descending thinned line-rays that spread wide on that name from the eye: hence, that is where the name “Sabiazoth” was taken from, because that was the very first word that mine mindful eyes saw upon the mental resurrection of my mind: It was as though that name was prepared in advance for the arrival of my mind’s resurrection). And everything else that has occurred between the third grade to the age of 40, was never experienced with my mind’s presence. All that my being could do is totally trust in what my family had said, about what had happened within that long extended mindless (unaware) span of mine. For almost forty Gregorian years, my mind was mindless, but my brain continued actuating as a mindless brain; functioning as an undetected zombie like state, while still automatically simulating a sentient person: And that it itself will probably never return even if my brain was to become mindless again, because whatever or whoever it was functioning my soul in mine absence, was only a simulation (i.e., assuming true that the-World’s understanding of “consciousness” is one in the same as sentience, my mindless brain has produced a “simulated consciousness” in the absence of my “actual consciousness”). This is not at all impossible, because even with animals, millions of people imagine that their pets too are persons that are aware (even some zoologists and scientists believe that certain animals are sentient just like humans are; e.g., with monkeys, apes, elephants, dolphins, whales, etc.). So how much easier can it also then be done with a human, whose brain has become mindless just like the animals? Many people who my being meets up with, from span to span, wonder and become curious about my mental condition; that they eventually, always wind up asking what would’ve caused my mindful brain to become a mindless brainfor so many years?

An Injurious Household

As a child, my mother use to send my being, with my other two siblings, to be babysit by my aunt from my father side; along with her three daughters, one older son, and one toddler son. On and off, for many years, my aunt would babysit us while my mother went to work: My aunt was a very tough person with a very aggressive disposition, and she was heavy in weight; a Puerto Rican woman, who has been excommunicated from her faith. And she had some very nasty three daughters, and they were taking bible studies to dedicate themselves to their mother’s same faith. My aunt, in whom my being will surname her in this article as Victoria, was mean, bitter, angry, without a single sense of peace; and she was also prejudice against Dominicans: She hated the fact that her brother (my father who was a Puerto Rican male) fell in love with my mother (who is from the Dominican Republic): She made sure that she vent-out that hatred and anger upon my being, and my brothers, when my mother would leave, after dropping us off. Victoria, married but separated, always fought with her other lover, who was a tall and slim Indian Puerto Rican looking male, with slick black shiny straight hair, mostly always gelled up: That on some many occasions, she would get on top of him, pinning him to the floor, slapping and punching him on his face, and threatening to bash his head in with an iron. He could not have done anything but just laid there underneath her, as though immobilized; because he knew that if he would had fought back in self-defense, her three daughters would make sure that they would join in to beat him up, for they were standing by just in case. It was a mad house.

Victoria’s three nasty pretty daughters were just as mean and conniving as their mother. They always weren’t present when my mother would drop us off early in the morning, for they would only be around after high school hours; an imminent time that my being was always immensely dreading: for when they’ve returned home, the already bad situation that existed with Victoria would only get badder (from bad to worse). Her three daughters, starting from the eldest to the youngest, are surname in this article as Ethel, Nita and Thelma: They too were very mean, always exasperated and irritated, and that’s also probably due to Victoria’s excessive strict rules with them, making sure that they wouldn’t date males: and if any of them disobeyed a single rule or order from her, they would’ve been severely chastised, with screams of madwomen. Everyone feared Victoria: even her friends, siblings and her neighbors knew not to mess with her. Her other two sons, in which they’ll remain as nameless in this article, were not much of a bother: her older son never got involve in abusing us.

So much abuses were done, both physically and mentally, that all of them can’t be listed in this article; so to make a long story short, let’s just say that my being got the worst abuse than my other two brothers: Simply because, unlike them, my demeanor and disposition then had feminine behavior and mannerism. It came to a point that just by standing, sitting, walking, talking, drawing and playing with toys, Victoria would beat the force out of my ‘body,’ all along, while making sure that my legs and arms were fully clothed in order not to leave any evidence of physical bruises behind, for my mother. She would beat and strike with a belt, and on many occasions, with a detached electrical wire; striking after every single word of every single sentences: All along while screaming, “Dios odia los patos!” (God hates faggots!). In Victoria’s and her daughters own perceptions of my ‘body’s’ demeanor (again with my walking, sitting, standing, talking and playing), was always deemed as a ‘pato’ (‘faggot’) in their twisted minds. Of course my mind couldn’t understand what they meant by that, because as a child, my being didn’t know what they were all trying to accuse IT of: Nevertheless, they’ve always threatened that if my being would’ve said anything to my mother about their abuses, they would do worse to IT upon my return. And of course, as a child, my fears kept my mouth in silence; except, for one morning, while my mother was getting prepared for work, putting on her makeup before her bedroom mirror, IT asked her, “Mom, what’s a pato?” She said, “A pato means a duck.” And then she asked why the question, but my being nodded, and said, “Nothing; was just wondering what it meant.” She then smiled, and kissed my forehead. During our walking in that same morning to Victoria’s apartment, my being was crying inside from the confusion, because Victoria and her daughters never explained specifically why they used the term “pato” against my being. Somehow, in their sick minds, they probably automatically thought that such a term was known in my head. When we finally arrived at Victoria’s apartment, my being ran in her bathroom, making it look like IT had to use it immediately to urinate: and inside there, IT kept silently crying in tears, looking up towards the ceiling while silently asking God repetitively, “Why God?…Why do you hate my person because of a duck?…Why?”

As the extreme abuses continued, on some occasions, when my being would’ve escaped, IT use to run out through Victoria’s fire escape window, and run right into the next door apartment’s fire escape window for protection, which was the residence of my great-grandmother of my mother side (she use to live right next door to Victoria), and she use to make sure that my being stayed with her for the rest of the day until my mother would return from work and pick us up (nevertheless, my being still feared too much to tell her about all of the abuses even though, IT itself felt safe and protected with her). Victoria use to blaze with anger, and would send one of her daughters to retrieve my person back to her, but my great-grandmother would adamantly respond to them in Spanish, “No, he’ll stay with me until my daughter returns: I’m his grandmother; and you can’t tell me what to do with my grandson.” Eventually, Victoria made sure that from now on, her fire escape window was gated and locked (even if she her-self didn’t like the feeling of being gated in her own apartment); as a result, my being couldn’t escape from the abuse any longer. It has even come to the point where the fear was so great that my being use to just physically sit on Victoria’s living room sofa, and not move a muscle at all (not even a single flinch), for fear that any small movement might trigger them to beat my ‘body’ to the floor. As a matter of fact, my being even made sure that no thoughts whatsoever actuated in my mind, for fear that Victoria would’ve seen inside it, and seen a thought that she may not have liked, and beaten my ‘body’ because of it; for she use to give a look like she could’ve read secrets of the-Mind, for her eyes were very dark brown, and very piercing looking. Everything then became like a stand still for my being, both physically and mentally; and yet, even without moving a muscle or saying a word from my part, they would still find reasons to beat my ‘body’ down. It’s to no wonder that eventually, it was imminent that my mind was going to shut down soon, to protect itself from the abuses.

It is important that you (the reader) come to know that the first half/quarter duration of all of the abuses that has occurred (during my mindful state of awareness), my mind was not allowed to associate with anything or anyone to begin with: It wasn’t even allowed to reflect and to develop the mental actuation of ‘The-Self’ (the-Ego/the “I”): There were even languages that my mind has never came to relate to either, nor to relate to anything or anyone at all; not even to relate with the concept of relation itself either. Even concepts of the figurative heart (emotions) were abusively halted from actuating inside my mind: And also mental conscionable concepts (such as virtues, ethics, principles and morals. were also halted before the mindless state of my brain occurred). Furthermore, knowledge that are subjective, abstracted, biased and idiosyncratic connotative were denied to be in-formed inside my mind with such in-formations). The early mindful duration part of all of the abuses that has happened, has kept my mind mentally formless and shapeless, in “tabula-rasa” (a “blank-slate,” in Latin): entirely amorphous. And as indicated before, when my being began attending the third grade class, the teacher too was no help either. She looked, behaved and sounded just like my aunt Victoria, but as a Jewish version of her; for that teacher also appeared mean, irritable and exasperated. There were even some many occasions where my mind was almost going under as the teacher was teaching something on the classroom’s blackboard: She would all of a sudden take notice of my facial mindless wondering expression, stop what she was teaching before the entire class, walk over to where my ‘body’ was sitting, and would then grab my arm very aggressively, shaking my ‘body’ very roughly and vehemently, while loudly saying, “Is there anyone there!?..Are you cuckoo!?…Wake up, you stupid child!!” It was seeming as though Victoria was now everywhere, and even inside mine third grade class! There was no escape from her! Eventually, my mental blackout has occurred during a classroom assignment, as indicated in the first paragraph of this article; that finally, my mind has then shut itself down to protect itself from the imminent insanity that would’ve occurred: That is, from and by the-Mind itself.

That is why, when my mind was resurrected into mindfulness (awareness) again, the last very full state that it itself was in (before it became mindless), was the same very full state upon its return through its mental resurrection, verily. That is why no other two human mindless brains, that become resurrected into mindful brains again, will be the same. No matter how long a human’s brain remains mindless, and no matter what the brain has automatically absorbed in knowledge and skills during its absence of its mind, the-Mind itself will still be in the same mental state it was before it became mindless; upon its mental resurrection. That’s because nothing, absolutely nothing, is experienced without awareness (so that, even with the brain’s cerebral memories that were automatically formed in the absence of its mind, they still cannot be remembered with the-Mind as experiences, but only to be viewed as though one would literally be watching television flicks: that is, only when such cerebral memories are automatically stimulated by the physical senses at any given span/moment, because they can’t be viewed and maneuvered at will since they were not experienced with the-Mind in sentience: More can be read about the differences between an automatic instinctive memory, vs. an intently mental experienced remembrance, at the following link of my “Memorizing Vs. Remembering” article). Before my brain became mindless, and if my mind would’ve had the opportunity to be actuated with the knowledge and language of The-Self (the-Ego/the “I”), then upon its mental resurrection, my being would’ve known how to be a-self. Instead, my very long extensive span of mindlessness state, prevented such in-formations to take form in mine mind: keeping then my mindless brain unleavened and unfermented from the permeation of the ego (because such “ego-awareness” can only be learned and acquired within a certain specific stage of awareness).

The Nurtured Ego

Without sentience, the ego cannot be learned and applicable, because such a knowledge and language is categorically personal and partisan to an individual, and can only be exclusively grasped as a preference; in full reflective awareness. And due to the global fact that The-self itself is immensely ambiguous and a paradox, such an”ego-awareness” must solely be taught from upbringing, while one is personally experiencing his/her adolescent stage of physical transformations (that is, without any pauses of awareness in between): Since there is no one universal application of The-Self to all in the same, you can’t take a grown adult that was never introduced and informed about such “ego-awareness,” and then thrust him/her into the great enormous ambiguity of The-Self, to then expect that adult to go for grabs, learn it and become it: It’s impossible, because the ego can only be grown into it, individually; so that one is than enabled to become his/her own abstract in contrast to the global ambiguity of ipseity. Hence, the ego is not just a language, it’s a “nurturing awareness.” And my mind was never nurtured in that kind of awareness before my state of mindlessness has occurred: As a matter of fact, it was never mentally nurtured in any way, form or manner: it’s not even associated to any kind of mental nurturing experiences, because that very crucial mental nurturing stage was entirely mindless as my ‘body’ transformed from childhood to adulthood. That is why my mind is chaste to the ego, and chaste to any other kind of “nurturing awareness.” Indubitably, because of what has happened to my immaterial mind, that’s enhoused within my material brain, the “Adamic” mind has been resurrected within mine mind; from and by the-Mind itself.

And who knows!? Who’s to say that Adam and Eve were familiar with “ego-awareness.” Just because the bible indicates them conversing with God in egocentric language, that doesn’t mean that they were actually familiar with such awareness and disposition. It’s just the same as when one reads about Egyptian mythology and its gods: it describes the whole afterlife process with the global modern belief of the metaphorical soul (that which departs from us at death, and lives on in the spirit realm forever). But such global belief in the immortality of the soul was not really ascertained, until the Grecian philosopher Plato introduced it as a suggestive assumption (possibly to have first been inspired by his teacher, Socrates): And that’s way after when the gods of Egypt were prominent and famous. The Egyptians at that time believed in the assumption that it was there gods instead that would provide for them a new spirit-body in heaven, awaiting for them after their deaths to be infused with their awareness, experiences and memories by their god Osiris itself, to then become deified with all their gods: They never believed that they had a soul within them that was immortal, and that it would have automatically depart from their bodies to go on living after their deaths: And yet, the Egyptian mythological afterlife process is still described in our modern awareness of the immortality of the soul, so that it can easily be understood for our modern readers. In like same manner with Adam and Eve, when one reads a part of the bible of them conversing with God in the language and fashion of The-Self; so that such read can easily be understood: but most importantly, to also be applicable.

Adamic Sentience

Most people (religious and nonreligious) don’t really realize that if Adam had obeyed God in spite of Eve’s disobedience, his life would’ve probably been spared, and he would’ve been given another wife after Eve’s destruction. Let’s just say that if Adam remained obedient, and that he was living up until our lifespans, we all would’ve realized that unlike the many existing paintings and statues of Adam and Eve out there, Adam wouldn’t really have a navel like we all do, simply because he never began as an infant: So the whole experience of adolescent physical transformation would’ve been utterly devoid in his making (unbeknownst to his mental awareness, experience and being). And no matter how much people would’ve explained to him what’s it like to transform from a child to an adult, he would’ve only comprehend it as an outside observer, but he would’ve never ever understand it as in being it (just the same as a man that will never understand the experience of giving life through pregnancy; no matter how much it is explained to him). Even though my soul (my literal animating physical body; not referring to the metaphorical soul) began as an infant, and having a physical navel on its belly area, one would look at it and assume that my being is just like everyone else: Physically speaking, that is true; but to a certain extent. As explained above, because my mind was mindless for a very long extensive span (for almost 40 Gregorian years), and especially during the transformative physical stage of adolescence (and also, during the mental nurturing stage of my mind), such transitional mental awareness and experience is also unbeknownst to my being.

In mine mental awareness, unlike Adam being created straight from the dust, it is as though my soul was still born from a womb with hidden inborn knowledge and skills; that as preconditions, all of a sudden emanated from within and immediately filled and formed my mental blank-slate, state of mind: Like in a blink of a flash (that very same familiar flash when one goes to sleep and wakes up, but you can’t tell for how long you’ve slumbered until you look at your clock). That’s the same way that my being has experienced its very long extensive span of mindlessness (the exact equated mental experience that anyone experiences from a regular daily slumber): there are no differences. So it’s like my being went to sleep regularly, and during that one particular slumber, the precondition knowledge and skills that were hidden instinctively, started automatically emanating into my mind, so that upon awakening, my being woke up to a full-grown body with a set of information, intelligence, skills and abilities; nevertheless, yet still being unfamiliar and foreign to them. It was as though a full set of tools were given in a sudden, and my being had to try to find out how to use them. Therefore, my being has no awareness and experience in what is like to go through the simultaneous mental and physical changes of adolescence: IT doesn’t even know how a puberty stage is like; and the physical changes that one normally discovers and identifies (associates) personally and reflectively with: This is why my psyche being is mentally uniformed and immutable (unchanging), because my mental awareness did not experience the actual physical transformative stage that everyone else normally become aware of, and experiences it: Therefore, the butterfly transition state that most people can relate and associate with, is permanently concealed and obscured to my sentience and experience(s)—utterly devoid in my mind. Hence, my being then had no other determination but to logically come to a rational explanation: Based on the fact that adolescence is physically real, and that the psyche-ego transitional awareness and experiences exist for others, IT had to acknowledge and categorize all that information as part of the whole “ego-awareness” structure: yet still, very foreign to my form of person. My being then classified that whole “ego-awareness” philosophy as the exclusive language of The-Self.

Unlike Adam, in whom had the mental opportunity to be created with God’s version of subjective feelings, however, my mind did not have the opportune-span to be mentally actuated with the language of the figurative heart (emotions); and that’s probably because to acquire such an ambiguous knowledge in nowadays, one must be taught about it during upbringing (in other words, the knowledge of the heart is also a “nurturing awareness,” just as the same the mental actuation of the ego also is). And that probably goes the same for conscionable connotative concepts (e.g., virtues, morals, principles and ethics; as well as the mental actuation of a conscience): such knowledge is also a “nurturing awareness.”

In advanced, when Adam was mentally created in the knowledge of God’s version of the figurative heart; he probably was expected to nurture such awareness during his children’s physical and mental upbringings: and he probably was expected to nurture the awareness of God’s version of conscionable concepts as well. The problem in nowadays is that the biblical God’s version of the heart and conscience, as it were then with Adam, has now become so ambiguous that in order for anyone to acquire any understanding and application that’s connoted with such knowledge, can solely be acquired through a nurturing upbringing process that’s biased—before a child grows into an adult and is then thrust out there, in the ambiguity of the-World’s subjective ideologies; the abstracted and obscured philosophies; the abstruse ideas and theories; and of course, the complexities of ipseity and solipsism. If extraterrestrial aliens were real, in accordance to my instinctual observations and scrutiny of the-World’s immense ambiguities, my being can testify on their behalf that they would’ve immediately ran back out, and get as far as they can from our planet: They would’ve thought that the-World(s) is crazy because of its immense enigmas it inhabits—(ha ha ha ha). And you’re reading this from an actual extroverold alien, the closest that you will ever get to an actual alien.

So even though mine own eyes can see that my belly has a navel (a strong indication of my soul being born as an infant); and that my mind is aware that my physical soul still went through the normal changes that everyone else goes through (in the absence of my awareness), it is then evident, that the state of my mind is “Adamic.” Because of my brain’s random mindlessness mishap, a mental like-Adam state has been resurrected in my mind, and now through my being: Because like Adam, if he was still alive to my lifespan, we both would’ve continued on living, mentally relating with each other, on knowing to exist without the personal and internal mental awareness of adolescence.

Perhaps now, you (the reader) can understand how my being began, when IT first ended mindlessly, and then resurrected mindfully (in other words, my being had to have end first, before IT would have begun). So far, as it seems, since there are no two mishaps of human mindlessness alike, the state of my mental “Adamic” mind only exist within mine mind; from and by the-Mind itself. It is then logical to reason that thus far, my “Adamic” being is the first and the last of its kind (the alpha and the omega of my extroverold alien).

Like this:

In an ancient civilized span in space, when Egypt’s mythical hybridized deities were considered a true reality, there lived a people with great imagination in conjuring magnificent fear inspiring deities: worshiping and sacrificing to them within huge designated temples and shrines; and at homes. This was a span of great promises and of overpowers (as well as overthrows) that was definitely assured by the earth-gods (pharaohs/kings) of that existence; in whereas, even the magical practicing priests gave a sense of public awe with the mutated appearances, majesty and the glory of their legendary gods: And yet, all along, sin did not exist to them within their blissful ignorance; and there was no collective consciousness of any evil god (e.g., Satan the Devil, and its’ hordes of demons): not even within their very own deity, Seth (who was known as the god of chaos/change, deserts, storms, and foreigners). How did the Egyptians not see evil with this kind of chaotic entity? Someone may ask. Although Seth was known to be a force of chaos, storms and deserts, those attributes were still considered constructive, to balance nature and all that exits—between life and death—light and dark—sun and moon—love and hate—friend and enemy (all the necessary aspects that balances nature with life). It was believed that after one’s death, one of the deities of the underworld (possibly Osiris, who was known to have been the god of hereafter) would come and take all of your essences, aspects, memories and experiences, and incorporate them into a new spirit body; in which, thereafter, you would be challenged by many tests, including the ones that would be assigned by Seth itself; the chance to then prove your endurance and worthiness in remaining as a god (become deified): It was believed, that one had to prove of maintaining balanced stamina, in order to keep the new spirit body that Osiris made for one, as a god; to then become and remain like the gods themselves—there were no such a thing as the belief in the immortality of the soul (e.g., the metaphorical soul that automatically departs after one’s own death): that dogma was not ascertained until the Grecian philosopher, Plato, made public references to such suggestion (and that was possibly inspired by his teacher, Socrates). It was a different world then for the Egyptians; until one particular instance, an intended divine intervention allowed the dreamer of dreams (the biblical Joseph—Genesis, chapters 37 to 50) to manifest into their innocent unleavened span (possibly between 2000 to 1786 B C—during the middle kingdom): and from there on, nothing was going to stop the leavening of the knowledge and awareness of sin. To the Egyptians, the dreamer of dreams became like a Pandora’s box. Trouble then began, in Egypt’s paradise.

During Joseph’s leavening span of Hebrew worship, the knowledge of sin’s origin began to infiltrate Egypt, and the Hebrew population began to become many in that land of Goshen (the land that was given by Joseph himself, when he was assigned as a ruler over the entire land of Egypt; of course, under the ruling throne of the nameless pharaoh in that particular span). Long there after, a nameless “pharaoh of the oppression” began to fear the great numbers of the Hebrew population (in fear that they would collectively ally against him): he and his magical practicing priests began to then fear the God of Hebrews, making their own gods inferior in contrast to the Hebrew’s God. The “pharaoh of the oppression” then began to make a decree to kill every first-born Hebrew male, and to enslave the Hebrews under brutal taskmasters. This paved the way for a hero to be born, and to deliver the enslaved Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage. In the possible interval span of 1393-1273 B.C.E., the prophesied hero was finally born, named Moses. Much later, as a full advanced adult, Moses finally takes action with the aid of his Hebraic God (Jehovah/Yahowah/Yahweh), and with his brother, Aaron: And the war of the gods was finally initiated; and Egyptian’s innocence in paradise has finally began its initial end.

At the beginning of the war of the gods, during the ruling span of the nameless “pharaoh of the exodus,” when the first two plagues were initiated by the God of Hebrews (in which was, 1st turning the waters and the Nile River into blood: and 2nd, causing a great infestation of frogs throughout the entire land of Egypt), they were indeed genuinely replicated and multiplied by their influenced demoniac Egyptian gods (by Hapi, the god of the Nile: And by Heket, the frog goddess of life); furthermore, the magical practicing priests invoked that those two gods made sure their current pandemic also infiltrated in the land of Goshen, where the Hebrews resided: and they did just so, successfully: It may have gone something like this, concerning one of the two gods, when a priest in charge was invoking the goddess Heket for justice, “Oh Heket, breather and giver of life, in your name, bring forth frogs, and plague the Hebrews as well!” And Heket did just so, by replicating and multiplying the frogs, and causing them to plague where the Hebrews also resided. On the third plague (in which was, causing the great infestation of gadflies throughout the entire land of Egypt), the magical practicing priests called upon their god Thoth(the wise and scribe god of magic) to reproduce and multiple the plague; however, with this particular epidemic, and all the others that are imminent, it/they could not be emulated any longer: Nevertheless, the god Thoth was able to still control God’s infestation, by also directing the plague in the land of Goshen: And it may have gone something like this, when a priest in charge may have gone to the nameless “pharaoh of the exodus,” complaining, “Oh Great Pharaoh, we’ve asked Thoth to replicate and multiply the gadflies, but we were unable to succeed, for it seems that such a curse is only possible by the finger of God!” “Surely there must be something you can do,” the “pharaoh of the exodus” replied with great concern and urgency. The priest in charge then responded, “Yes my King, we can still do something: watch, and be amazed.” At this point, the priest in charge invoked Thoth before his king, and said, “Oh Great and Mighty Thoth, god of magic, we implore you to take in-master the gadflies, and direct them to also curse the land in where the Hebrews reside!” And Thoth did just so, by mastering over God’s curse, and redirecting the gadflies toward the land of Hebrews, successfully. It was at this particular span, that the God of Hebrews then became infuriated at the demoniac Thoth, and promised to Himself that from here and on, that any other imminent plagues that plague Egypt will no longer be permitted to also plague the land of His people: So God itself set a demarcation between the land of Egypt, and the land of Goshen, that no other plagues will also plague Goshen any longer: And God did just so, successfully. Any other plagues, thereafter, that could no longer be recreated and multiplied, and be redirected, has then proven that the God of Hebrews is ascertained a winner in the war of the gods! And thereafter, the Hebrews were then emancipated, and continued to permeate the knowledge of sin’s origin as they freely wonder in the wilderness for many years; defeating other nations with their patron gods, one by one. And to make a very long story short, by the span that the last messianic lineage prophecy was fulfilled (in which was, the promised coming of the Messianic King, Jesus Christ; and thereafter, his death and resurrection), the knowledge of sin’s origin has become fully established globally: Even the modern atheists and agnostics, and almost everyone in the-World(s) today, use and apply the language of sin, subconsciously. Sin is now everywhere, and in everyplace and everyone. The knowledge of sin, is here to stay.

In the abortion of all the ancient gods’ fame and glory, their collapse were prematurely: thanks to one of their earthly innovators (the nameless “pharaoh of the exodus”), the remaining aborted gods are in complete enmity with all mankind, never to deal with us through the genuine practice of direct sorcery, as they did once with the Egyptian magical practicing priests (i.e., when contacts with influenced demoniac gods were done face-to-face, mouth-to-mouth, and person-to-person). And now, within our modern span, these demoniac gods are gnashing in their loathsomeness against all mankind. All that the gods now do is go halfway with those still seeking them for favors; giving those seekers only quasi-promises, pseudo-purposes, empty hopes and short-termed blessings. Always in remembrances of when their image and reputation became a fiasco, they will never forget what that nameless “pharaoh of the exodus” did when they eventually exhorted and admonished him to let Moses and his people go, probably warned toward the last three plagues of the ten. It may have gone something like this, when a priest in charge implored the “pharaoh of the exodus” to heed the goddess of life’s admonishment, “Oh my Great King of Egypt, the goddess Heket is offended by this, Moses; and, exhorts you to let him and his people go!” “I will not let Moses and his people go, for am I not a god also!!?” the “pharaoh of the exodus” responded in great anger, anguish and frustration. The “pharaoh of the exodus” instead became in defiant of his own gods’ commands; and for that reason, antipathy eventually began as a permanent result between man and the ancient gods; especially, that during the 40 years desert migration of the emancipated Hebrews, they continued to make other ancient gods an embarrassment as they defeated their nations along the way, with the aid of the God of Hebrews (e.g., the defeat of Baal; Inanna; and Asherah—in whom was erroneously included in the worship of God, as His consort; and were paid for it by death for those responsible: Also, the defeat of all the Babylonian gods—like Marduk; Ishtar; and the one with the many phases of Tammuz; that eventually lead to the defeats of all the Medo-Persian gods—like Asher; and Spenta Mainyu, known to be the “Holy Spirit”). You can now see why they are not as forgiving as the biblical God is; and as to why they will only inimically go halfway for mankind.

The ancient gods are collectively obstinate in their stance and position against all humans. Ever since after the successful eradication of Babylon, the practice of direct visioned and audio sorcery and spells finally came to an end; remaining now as an envisioned tease of the modern magic, that will never become directly visioned: Only to then partially help their seekers in need, want, desire and hope: just as they began fashioning them-selves in the remaining years of Medo-Persia, after Babylon’s annihilation. Even from the gods of Greece, Rome and until now, the privilege of an immediate personal contact (face-to-face: mouth-to-mouth) with them has never returned, but only through indirect means of their seekers and believers (and through indirect medium items—such as tarot cards, crystals, tobacco smokes, Ouija boards, hallucinating drugs; dream and epiphany interpretations as predictions, divining items, etc.): therefore, taking advantage of their followers’ egos; knowing that those seeking them, are going to reflect all the way when all they have to do is go even less than halfway. They prance and prey on human’s emotional capacities, with the elation of the emptiness they leave for their followers in the end. And one most important thing to keep in mind, let’s not forget that they are also, blood-thirsty; voraciously, and insatiably.

Although the ancient gods still exist in our modern lifespan, and that they’re still manufactured, marketed, purchased and worshiped (not only as in their ancient appearances and names, but also under gussied and disguised religious and Christian appearances and names), their final end is very imminent; but on this turn of finale, however, it will be done straight by ‘the finger of God.’ In the ancient lifespans, when ancient nations were overcome and defeated by the God of Hebrews, the conquered captives and scattered escapees still took with them their patron gods, spread them throughout the surface of the earth, and as such, continued keeping them ‘alive.’ But in this finale of the gods that is soon imminent, they will not survive any longer, not even by their remaining surviving worshipers; for they will be eradicated from their roots up: not through men by divine guidance, as it were then; but, straight from God Himself. Like a thief in the night, in a global instance, the gods will be no more. At first, people will still be seeking them, but they will not be found. And their government won’t be interested in resurrecting them either, not even for profits. Those who put faith in those gods that are soon to be destroyed, if they don’t abandon them before their divine destruction is finally manifest, they them-selves will also be plagued within their destruction (Revelation, 18:4, 8, 21).

The Inception of Sin

Accordingly to the collective social consciousness of the-World(s), there are various alphas that explain the beginning and purpose of life and humans. Scientists and physics (Evolutionists) explain our alpha as a result of randomized incidents (purely circumstantial and coincidentally), in total absence of sentient intentional intervention, and contingencies. Creationists, on the other hand, is quite the opposite, for they believe that God (or, a Creator) created life and the Earth in just a matter of literal six days: each day exacting as literal 24 hours even though the word “day” in the Bible is referred to a considerable length of time (Genesis 2:4; Psalm 90:4). In the book of 2nd Peter, Chapter 3, verse 8, it indicates that a day of God is but a thousand years to mankind; so each first creative “six days” in the book of Genesis could be actually referred to “six thousand years” instead; that is, since man still did not exist yet during the first stages of our creation: this then would explain the creating process from trial to perfection (without errors); hence, the reason that per each end of a thousand years, God had to see that what was created was good (when you really think about it rationally, six thousand years of trial creations would explain the alpha and omega of prehistoric species no longer to return; e.g., dinosaurs). Creationists also believe that they age of the earth is just a few thousand years old. However, according to the Bible, the earth and the universe existed before the six days (or, the six thousand years) of our creation (Genesis 1:1): When the bible reads that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (a separation of the two), He did it when after He first found the earth formless and void; hence, it is obvious that the Earth is then much older before God separated the expanse from the waters, to have then separated the waters from the earth: He didn’t just created the heavens and the earth in one shot. So the explanation of the inception of sin, in this article, will not be based by Creationists (on Creationism) as biblical literalist interpreters, and not even according to religious theologians either, but only in accordance to biblical accounts. A rational and logical biblical Christian should have no objection to findings of credible scientific researches; especially, factual research that indicates that the earth may be billions of years old. Now that we have this clear, let us begin in understanding.

The etymology of the word ‘sin’ stems from the Old English noun, synn; and it indicates a moral wrong doing, offense and crime in enmity against the God of the bible: In other words, simply put, sin is a divine offense; and, depending upon the gravity of the disobedience, ‘sin’ is also a divine crime, and a divine felony: hence, varying from a scale of a simple immoral thought (impure desire) to physically committing, not just a crime (e.g., theft), but also in committing a grave felony against the biblical God (e.g., fornication): But what escapes most, is that lies too have variable degrees of crime; especially, when one intentionally (or even, unintentionally) testifies that the God of the bible is a liar (e.g., through false worship no matter how sincere and heartfelt the worship and religion is, or may be). After all, everything sinful began with a, what? A lie. And what was that lie that paved the way of sin’s inception?

Most people are familiar with the biblical book account of Genesis, in reference to the creation that eventually led to the first creation of the first man, Adam; and then secondly, to the creation of the first woman, Eve. In the book of Genesis, it indicates that the man was created in God’s image, both man and woman: In God’s image, God created them (of course, this God’s image is more of a capacity resemblance of divine capacities, and not so literal; e.g., the capacity of sentience, to be wise, to love, to be just and fair, and to have in power the agility to create, cultivate, manifest, etc.): That the first man was created from the dust of the earth, and that eventually, God blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and as the result of such breath, the man then became a living person (a living soul). It seems that this breath of life was not given to any other species except for the one that was created in God’s image, and that’ll solely be the human species.

In their blissful nakedness, God has instructed the man and the woman to be fruitful, and become many in the earth, and to take in domination of the earth, and all the other species: and God also instructed Adam, to then have him instructed his wife, that of every fruits and vegetables in the garden, they both can eat to their hearts desire; however, the fruits of both the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and the tree of everlasting life, that are in the middle of the Garden of Eden, they both must not eat from it: for in the “day” that they do eat from that which they were told not to eat from, on that “day,“ they shall surely die. The matter of the fact is, they eventually wind up eating of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad; nevertheless, they still did not die on that “day” that they ate from it. Why did they not die on that “day” they ate from the forbidden tree when God Himself told them, that on that “day” they both eat from the forbidden fruit, they will positively die?

That “day” was actually a “day” that was in sync with God’s day and for how long the human soul (animating physical body) can last without eating from the tree of everlasting life. Remember that inspired inscription of 2nd Peter, 3:8, that indicates a day of God is but a thousand years to man? That “day” that God was referring to Adam’s death sentenced, was referring to God’s day instead, and not of Adam’s day: Hence, the reason Adam only lived up to 930 years old (just 70 years short from one “day” of God). Surely then, Adam did die on that “day” God had warned and promised him that he would: Yes indeed, God has kept its words true when both, Adam and Eve, did died on that “day” they disobeyed and rebelled. If you recall that after Adam and Eve both disobeyed, God had them thrown out of the Garden of Eden before they would had determined to eat of the other forbidden tree, which was the tree of everlasting life. Had they eaten from that other forbidden tree, God’s words would not be true, for they would then not have died on that “day” they were promised to have died in. After Adam and Eve were exiled and banished outside from the Garden of Eden, God had posted at the east of the garden the cherubim, and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously, to guard the way to the tree of everlasting life: this assured that God was in control in keeping His words alive and true. So when Adam was created from the dust of the earth, in that very fresh created condition, Adam’s soul/body was only good to last for almost a “day” of God, naturally, but with everlasting life in view; hence, the divine death-sentence perfectly synced with the natural duration of Adam’s flesh: That means that when Adam was created perfectly in God’s image, he wasn’t still automatically created to live forever. The full story can be read at Genesis, chapters 1 through 3.

Both of the forbidden trees (the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and the tree of everlasting life) eventually were meant for Adam’s and Eve’s consumption, but only when God instructed to have had them eat from it at His right time, not of Adam’s and Eve’s. Ultimately, when the biblical God found them to be ready to eat from the forbidden trees, God would’ve first probably had them both eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad: And after a long contingent interim of how they both would’ve handled and behaved with such knowledge in God’s one day, and if deserving, God would’ve secondly probably had them both eat from the tree of everlasting life. In other words, everlasting life is then solely deserving. No one, absolutely no one, is automatically created with everlasting life: It must be deserved (terrestrial or celestial). Therefore, even Adam and Eve were not conditionally created to live forever: Eventually, they had to prove that they were deserving of such everlasting existence. So in everything that God creates, in which He creates perfectly, that doesn’t mean that perfections equate with everlasting continuations. If Adam and Eve were to have been created with everlasting life from scratch, and had they disobeyed a divine direct order, the death-sentenced would’ve instead been immediately. For the God of the bible would not give you everlasting life, to then take it away from you, and let you die gradually: Once such a God gives you everlasting life, it is to be permanent. So a person (above or below: spirit or man) with everlasting life, who would then directly violate a divine law against the biblical God, would not be punished by having his/her everlasting life condition become unconditioned (taken away), to then have one emaciated gradually in death; instead, death would absolutely be immediate. Trust my being when IT tells you, that a person with everlasting continuance, who boldly commits a felony against the God of the bible, the death-sentence would then be almost instantly; unless, you had to be allowed to live in order for God to prove a point true before everyone, as witnesses, in both the heavens and the earth (e.g., allowing Satan the Devil to remain in order to prove him a liar). Now we know the reason, as to how and why Adam and Eve were still able to continue to live, even after they disobeyed a direct divine order on that very “day” they were promised to have died. So every creation that God creates is not automatically created with everlasting continuation (as many may believe/feel, or just even think). Everlasting life is only achieved deservedly; it is not innately: never was; never is.

The First Sin

As told in the biblical account of Genesis: “Now the serpent [manipulated by the cherub, Satan the devil] was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die.” (Genesis, 3:1-4; Revelation, 20:2). And there you have it, the very first sin! The very statement that paved the way to resist and slander the biblical God as false (in other words, Satan indirectly told Eve, “God is a liar!”); something that our modern society give very little attention to.

Above all crimes against God, is the felony of accusing the God of the bible to be a liar, or using God’s name under false pretense (this is one sin that you want to make sure that you’re not committing: intentionally, or unintentionally, just to be safe). If anyone is still suggesting that eventually, when everyone has finally learned their lessons to accept God’s will instead of our own; that afterwards in the end, God will then still resurrect Adam and Eve back to life, is one that is still spreading Satan’s lie, when it was uttered to Eve, “You positively will not die.” If God were to resurrect Adam and Eve, that instead would definitely prove Satan as the one in truth, and God as the one whose a liar. The question that Satan keeps arousing in our confusing modern lifespan, is this: Is the God of the bible a liar, or not? Which is it?

Well, eventually Adam did die in that “day” at the age of 930 years old: and although it is unknown about the age of his wife’s death, Eve too must have died on that “day” since she was first the fleshly innovator who started the whole resistance and rebellion against God. It is then to no surprise that Satan the Devil is the one who is the Father of all lies. Therefore, in order for Satan to remain as a liar, in contrast to God’s truth, Adam and Eve are to never return for all eternity. In other words, the very current death status of Adam’s and Eve’s determines whether God is a liar, or not: and that, my reader, is the question.

So, is God a liar? In other words, will Adam and Eve remain dead? If not, are they currently alive in the spirit realm as many believe; therefore, only proving that the God of the bible is then a liar? With all this in mind, is it then reasonable to even think that the God of the bible will ever resurrect Adam and Eve back to life? If you even believe it to be so, it will be Satan instead proven to be true, after all.

The Birthright to Sin

As inspired in the biblical book of Romans, 5:12, it indicates, “…just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..,” we are all then born in sin, as an inheritance from the satanic father that Adam and Eve has sold us under; and that father is the father of all lies (Satan the Devil—the oppressor and slanderer): And because of that, “there is no man righteous in the earth that keeps doing good and does not sin” (Ecclesiastes: 7:20). Realistically then, we can come to reason that “there is no man that does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46). A sinful state is a state that separates us from the glory of God: hence, we are all separately born from the glory of God, and into the glory of satanic connection (in Satan’s resistance and rebellion against God, that separates us from God itself). So being born in sin is our inheritance; and therefore, our birthright to live in accordance to sin: However, that doesn’t mean that because of such birthrights, God will no longer continue to do its will as He had intended to do before Adam’s and Eve’s outright disobedience. Sin may be our birthright, but that birthright comes with a price: and that price is death: simply because, such inheritance cannot supersede the will of the God of the bible. Our inheritable freedom, away and separated from God (to do as we will), is only transient because the satanic paternity that Adam and Eve sold us under cannot grant us everlasting life. And even within the state of our inherited independent transient freedom, we’re not doing such a pretty good job in sustaining and balancing our earthly conditions either. Even with our foods, in comparison to many thousand years ago, we don’t live as much as our ancestors use to, into the hundreds of years because of our own gradual decline in diet consumption and grave environmental pollution. So even though we may have our birthright freedom to do as we will (even if it’s against the will of the biblical God), nevertheless, we can’t seem to do it successfully without harming the conditions of our natural atmosphere; without manifesting serious pollution; without controlling crimes, violence, murder, poverty, theft, hatred, prejudice and presumptuousness: And also, without maintaining monogamous sexual encounters in order to prevent the spread of sexual diseases; without controlling destructive addictions; and without sustaining an economy that’s freed of greed. All in all, the crucial conditions that sustains us throughout the generations and on, are being threatened to become unconditioned, and therefore, our freedom to keep on existing continuously, will be no more.

If the survival of our species is solely based on biblical knowledge and its prophetic trust, then it is to no surprise that based on biblical accounts, if God doesn’t come soon to rescue our earth from going under, eventually, the birthright to our sinful freedom will destroy us to oblivion, and this is proven by God’s words from the book of Jeremiah, 10.23, in where it indicates that a “man’s way does not belong to him…It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” With this in mind, “who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean [to save us]?’ ‘There is not one'” (Job 14:4). But according to biblical accounts, as promised and prophesied, that through the lineage of Adam’s son, Seth, and all the way through the lineage ending to Mary (Jesus’ Mother), there came to the earth the very man who can save mankind from our transient birthright sinful freedom, and into an adopted conditional everlasting freedom: and that prophesied man who can deliver the faithful ones, is no other than Jesus the Messiah; the very promised Messianic King, that will soon deliver the obedient ones into the everlasting life and love of the biblical God (Matthew 1:18-25; and Luke 1:26-38: John 11: 25, 26).

Accordingly to biblical accounts, obtaining freedom that is everlasting in life, requires one to be reborn again (to get baptized in the adoptive fatherhood of Jesus Christ), away from the fatherhood of Satan that Adam sold us under; and in this way, eventually one is brought back from the separation of God, and finally, soon into the glory of God once again; as it was once with God, Adam and Eve before their resistance and rebellion against God itself (John 3:3; Matthew 3:13-17).

Conception VS Perception of Sin

In accordance to the popular global debate, many religious people argue that even though sin is innate, some sins, however, are idealistic (a state of mind); e.g., the practice of human homosexuality (not referring to animal homosexuality) is argued that such a behavior is philosophical (an acquired extrinsic fad) that one is disposed of by conviction of choice, and not connatural. Hence the existence of reparative therapy (conversion therapy) comes into focus as a lifesaver for some religious believers; that through proper divine and biblical remedial treatments, a man who practices homosexuality can be cured into practicing heterosexuality: treating the innate sexual practice as a sexual-orientation instead; thus, saving the homosexual man from his so-called, sexual-disorientation. Many people, defending the act of homosexuality as an innate capacity, will use the connatural practice of animal homosexuality as an analogy, to validate their affirmations: That, however, is not really necessary, because this great religious human homosexuality debate will never solve, or prove a point; at least, from religious perspectives, that is.

The biblical King David once uttered, “…my mother conceived me in sin” (51:5): And as indicated above already, according to Romans 5:12, it reads, “That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned,” is a strong biblical fact that sin (all sin) is in fact a conception (an insemination through Adam’s sin, as an innate), and not as a perception. Hence, according to biblical accounts, in contrast to religious doctrinal accounts, we are born in sin; and as a result, any sinful act that we then act out on, is innate (a connatural birthright). That doesn’t mean that just because we are born as sinners, we then have the right to outwardly and straightforwardly practice sin unrestrained, and to cause destructive havoc and murder: There are no excuses for taking anyone’s life away; nor are there any excuses to cause natural living conditions as unconditional (unlivable; polluted). Our birthrights to sin (separated from the origin of God) doesn’t excuse us to infringe upon other people’s birthrights to sin as well.

The conception of sin is not a mysterious reality; it’s not some grand and deep curse coursing through our blood, nor some great dark and ominous power: Sin, simply put, means a separation from the biblical God; in other words, when one says that we are born as sinners, that simply means that we are born separated from God: it’s as simple as that. That means that since we’re born separated from God, we are then going to innately be and perform acts that are separated from God itself. For any religious member, leader or ruler to then suggest that homosexuality is not inborn, in all fairness and logic, that would then mean that homosexuality is not a sin, after all. Since we are born in sin and as sinners, and since the act of homosexuality itself is biblically regarded as a sin, that then means that such a sin is innate. If not acknowledged as so, the only thing that religious debates (against homosexuality) will paradoxically prove, is that even though homosexuality is a sin, it is nevertheless, a sin not inborn even though we are all born in sin—a highly illogical conclusion. With this in mind, once anyone stipulates that a certain sin is not inborn, this then invalidates any other sin being inborn as well. Either sin is inborn, or isn’t. You can’t disqualify or qualify which sin we are born-in, when any sin is still a sin, regardless. Therefore, if a sin is then disputed as not inborn, that then suggests that the sin in question may not be a sin after all; or that all sins are then not inborn, but just a state of mind; in which either arguments, will only prove that the biblical God is a liar.

Sin is then not a perception; it is a conception, as it is inspired and stated clearly in the bible.

Please keep in mind that the analogy of homosexuality used in this article is not to debate whether either the practice of homosexuality is a sin, or not; but rather, to point out that the religious debates against the nature and act of homosexuality really has no meaning or bearing whatsoever; and that such like doctrinal religious debates, are not in congruent with biblical positions in regards to any practices that are biblically separated from the biblical God itself: that is, in contrast to what is religiously separated.

To Be, Or Commit Sin

Although we are born in sin, or born as sinners, is hard to then comprehend how is it that we can still commit sin against God when we are, indeed, sin itself? Or are we?

According to the famous global phrase, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck,” implies in this article, that if a person looks like a sinner, walks like a sinner, and talks like a sinner, then he/she probably is a sinner; therefore, by observing the creature’s habitual (or automaton) characteristics, he/she can be identified by one’s own form of nature. According to biblical accounts, our origin of nature is sin; therefore, biblically indicating that we are innately and connaturally a “sin-creature;” and as such, we’re going to, not so much commit, but be sin itself. Just like the duck that’s innately a duck, and therefore, will be a duck, cannot commit (or violate) to duck if it is a duck itself. Likewise, we cannot simply commit a sin (commit a separation) when in fact, we are sin itself (we are the separation itself). In this enlightenment of sin itself, people are misconstrued about the differences of what is to be sin, and what is to commit sin. Perhaps, the wording in the bible could have been lost when people started to astray from objectively translating the bible, into subjectively interpreting the bible instead. For example, the interpreted bible will indicate when someone commits a sin against God; but before the application of interpreting the bible came into play, in its original translation, that same ‘someone’ could have instead committed the crime itself (i.e., the original translation would’ve/could’ve indicated that same ‘someone’ committed theft, when in the new interpreted version, theft was replaced with sin). A God that biblically says we are born as sinners, but then punishes us because we’re being what we’re born as, would be an unjust God. We simply cannot commit sin, because we are sin itself. If we were free of sin, like Jesus Christ was when he was alive in the earth, and we committed a crime against God, we would then actually commit a sin against God. Instead, the bible could be actually teaching its faithful readers and listeners that even though we are sin in itself, that does not excuse us to commit a crime in itself against God. Hence, even though the separation from the biblical God may be our birthright, that doesn’t mean, however, that we can commit crimes without any judgement: Sin or sinless, there’s no excuse to commit any crime (e.g., sin does not equate with crime: sin only equates with a status against God, because you don’t have to be born in sin in order to commit a crime). Nevertheless, an innately sin-creature cannot commit sin like an innately sinless creature can commit sin. Hence, in our sin state connatural capacity, we are then perfect in sin, for we have not ever possessed a sinless state; therefore, never knowing exactly what it is to be and experience sinlessness. We then have no choice but to trust in the biblical God in telling us what sinless actually is, since we never were sinless, in our natural state to begin with: We can only imagine what a sinless creature may be like.

Only a sinless creature can commit sin: But both a sinless creature and a sin creature can commit crimes.

Only an innate connected person can commit separation, because one who is innately born in separation, cannot commit separation.